Contingency: use of "or" allowing multiple conditions?

[andargor]

(Just wait until he starts asking you just when contingencies go off BTW, as there are some interesting questions to be answered there too)

Yes, I remember your questions about it.

There is so much fuzz in this spell that it has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Is "when I'm attacked" when damage is taken or when a spell is being cast against you or when a sword is swung in your direction? Does contingency come first? If you are not aware of the attack, does the contingency trigger (à la Alarm)?

All good questions.

Andargor

 

[jgsugden]

If we follow standard English practical usage of the word 'condition', allowing alternative prerequisites is perfectly valid, as is multiple prerequisites. 'Condition' is a single word that refers to the sum of the individual prerequisites.

For instance, in a will, it is perfectly valid (in the US, at least) to write:

"I leave my 94' Honda to Timmy Sanders of 141 Mapplecrest Lane upon condition that he has finished college and has a job or, alternatively, is in college and has maintained a 3.0 or better GPA."

The law considers this a clear statement.

'Conditions' is also often used, but that is irrelevant. The question is not whether conditions may be used to describe multiple or alternative prerequisites, the question is whether the singular 'condition' can be used to describe multiple or alternative prerequisites. It can as demonstrated above. The fact that 'conditions' may also be used has no importance.

The player should be allowed to set any subset of prerequisites he would like to place upon the spell. Then, the spell should trigger when those conditions are clearly met. If there is any question in the mind of the DM that the conditions have not been met, the spell should not trigger.

For instance, if the player sets the contingency to operate if he is wounded, the DM should not have the spell operate if the PC takes negative energy damage that reduces hit poitns but leaves no wound.

A few things to note:

Players should not be allowed to use game mechanics in their conditions. PCs don't know about hit points. If you had never heard of D&D, would you turn to a friend (after witnessing a car wreck) and say, "Hey, I wonder how many hit points that guy lost when he went through the windshield ..."? Some game mechanics also have pracitcal uses as well, so the proper thing to do is to ask the question, "Would I ever use these words in real life to describe a situation?"

Trigger words are problematic in 3.5. If you look under free actions, you'll note that you can speak at any time, even during the turn of another creature. This, coupled with contingency based upojn a command word, allows instantaneous spellcasting during the action of another creature. By the rules, this is valid as the contingency is activated instantaneously. I suggest, as a house rule that you instead adopt the rule that spells activated via contingency activated during another creature's turn via a command word do not take effect until the end of that creature's action. I also advise adopting the house rule that contingency spells count against the 1 quickened spell per round limit (or against the 1 quickened spell per round for the following round if the quickened spell for this round has already been used or is not available, as would be the case when the contingency is activated during another creature's turn.

 

[Scion]

Players should not be allowed to use game mechanics in their conditions.

I dont think that anyone should be too hardball about useing game mechanic terms as a player and have them translated to something that makes sense in the game.

After all, as players we dont really know just which way a few points of damage will be interpreted.

'Near death' could be interpreted, for a 100hp character, anywhere from -9 to 99 hp, it is too ambiguous, and as such the condition would either trigger all too often or never trigger, at dm's option. That just isnt very useful.

So the player would have to state random things in hopes that something will occur at around the right time. Or one could simply assume that the player saying, 'when I have only 10% of my current hp' can be translated into character terms by something along the lines of, 'when I feel this bad or worse then trigger and fix me up'. They both mean exactly the same thing, but the player and dm can communicate it much easier, and the character can still do what is necissary.

Remember, in the game world these mechanics actually exist in some form or another. But the terms they would use and how they would use them would take a huge amount of time and effort for everyone to learn.. they would have to know the game mechanics terms, and their names in the game world. It is much simpler to just skip the middle man and use game mechanic terms and assume that the characters will translate it properly. Then everyone can be happy and the amount of work needed goes down drastically.

Plus, with this spell, the player can be much more exact and precise, while relying on the spell to figure out what it means in the game world. Which is more or less as it should be because of how precise the spell wishes the conditions to be.

 

[jgsugden]

I dont think that anyone should be too hardball about useing game mechanic terms as a player and have them translated to something that makes sense in the game.

After all, as players we dont really know just which way a few points of damage will be interpreted.

'Near death' could be interpreted, for a 100hp character, anywhere from -9 to 99 hp, it is too ambiguous, and as such the condition would either trigger all too often or never trigger, at dm's option. That just isnt very useful.

This was kind of my point. People are getting too much bang out of their buck with this spell because they can min/max the effect by using game mechanics. If you do not allow game mechanics to be used as a part of the trigger for this spell, it helps to keep it reasonable. It also helps keep away that 'video game' feel that infests D&D these days. A PC should never use a game term (as a game term) in character.

Does this make some uses of contingency harer to set up? Yes. Are those types of things hard in the real world? Yes.

As an example, a DNR (Do not resuscitate order) in the US is often a very long, well thought out specification of how someone should be treated in a life or death situation where there might be questions regarding quality of life after an injury. These things are very hard to lay out and quite often do not cover the situations that do arise in enough detail to give clear guidance. I see contingency spells a lot like a DNR in a way - a safety net to provide proper treatment of the PC when he is incapable of provifding that treatment for himself. It should be hard to use it for some things ...

 

[Scion]

Remember, this is just a game, not everyone wants to get down to the gritty like you are wanting to do for this spell

It sounds like you are wanting to cut out the options that, I feel, are what it is mainly for. Saving yourself from certain situations that arise, such as from hp loss and such. Since those are very hard to talk about in character terms it should be fine to talk about them in player terms and have the character translate, this should be easy and fine really.

In the other sense it sounds like you have no problem with the ones that, I feel, it should not be able to do. Such as, 'whenever king of land X 3000 miles away dies cast prestidigication to make a little skull and crossbones in the air 3' in front of me'. While interesting, I dont like that part of the spell.

So I really like the parts that the character is aware of directly, and could describe to himself, even if he couldnt describe it to others. We all know when we feel ill, or are hurt, or any number of other things where words simply fail us. I would be fine with the player describing, to the best of his ability, what he wants it to trigger on and when that occurs, so long as it is within the bounds of the spell as I describe it to them, let it happen. Even if that means, 'when I have 10% or less or my hp remaining then cast heal on myself'. In player terms this is easy and fast, in character terms it is something like, 'when I feel this bad or worse'.

It is exactly the same, and thereby a good option, since it isnt game breaking. If anything it helps to make the spell easier for what it seems to me that it should be for.

 

[jgsugden]

Remember, this is just a game, not everyone wants to get down to the gritty like you are wanting to do for this spell

It sounds like you are wanting to cut out the options that, I feel, are what it is mainly for. Saving yourself from certain situations that arise, such as from hp loss and such. Since those are very hard to talk about in character terms it should be fine to talk about them in player terms and have the character translate, this should be easy and fine really.

In the other sense it sounds like you have no problem with the ones that, I feel, it should not be able to do. Such as, 'whenever king of land X 3000 miles away dies cast prestidigication to make a little skull and crossbones in the air 3' in front of me'. While interesting, I dont like that part of the spell.

So I really like the parts that the character is aware of directly, and could describe to himself, even if he couldnt describe it to others. We all know when we feel ill, or are hurt, or any number of other things where words simply fail us. I would be fine with the player describing, to the best of his ability, what he wants it to trigger on and when that occurs, so long as it is within the bounds of the spell as I describe it to them, let it happen. Even if that means, 'when I have 10% or less or my hp remaining then cast heal on myself'. In player terms this is easy and fast, in character terms it is something like, 'when I feel this bad or worse'.

It is exactly the same, and thereby a good option, since it isnt game breaking. If anything it helps to make the spell easier for what it seems to me that it should be for.

I'm not worried about making it any easier. I have no trouble regarding the complexity.

As for the use of contingency as a way to determine when events beyond perception are allowed, I mentioned that it was technically possible if you follow the rules. I did not say I allowed it in my games. In my games, contingency triggers have to be observable by the PC (if he were awake and alert) to take effect. In other words, you can't set a contingency to cast detect invisible if an invisible foe comes within range because you can't see the foe come within range without the see invisible.

 

[Scion]

I'm not worried about making it any easier. I have no trouble regarding the complexity.

Not everyone is a lawyer, not everyone wants to be Sometimes it is ok just to make things easier on people.

In my games, contingency triggers have to be observable by the PC (if he were awake and alert) to take effect.

The pc is able to observe that s/he is hurt beyond a certain point. Therefore it is observable, and therefore allowed. But if you want it to be 'exact' and 'observeable' then how does one go about saying when it triggers according to how hurt they are?

That is one of the primary uses in my opinion Unfortuantely it sounds like you want to get rid of that part in order to limit the spells power, there are other, and easier, ways to do that without having to resort to such a point.

 

[jgsugden]

Not everyone is a lawyer, not everyone wants to be Sometimes it is ok just to make things easier on people.

When needed, yes. But when a spell is simple enough already, there is no reason to try to simplify it further.

The pc is able to observe that s/he is hurt beyond a certain point. Therefore it is observable, and therefore allowed. But if you want it to be 'exact' and 'observeable' then how does one go about saying when it triggers according to how hurt they are?

In my games, PCs utend to use contingency for reasons not related to their hit points. In those rare situations where they have used it to help their hit points, they usually have a trigger based upon 'injury' or 'unconciousness', terms that have a meaning outside the game and are simple to adjudicate.

As for PCs observing how wounded they are: No, they don't. Normal people usually have no idea how badly injured they are in an accident. One of the most common questions to paramedics from an accident victim is, "How bad is it?"

That is one of the primary uses in my opinion Unfortuantely it sounds like you want to get rid of that part in order to limit the spells power, there are other, and easier, ways to do that without having to resort to such a point.

In your opinion. That is how *you* use it. The game is not designed to have PCs speak in game terms. People do it quite often, but this is a role playing game. You take on the role of your character when you play. Your character doesn't have any concept of hit points, saving throw values, etc ...

My approach to this spell is based upon two factors: balance and role playing. In 'video game' style campaigns where people are less interested in role playing, it is perfectly fine to ignore the fact that a character would have no concept of hit points. I recommend against it as I find that video games or D&D miniatures skirmish end up being a much better source of 'video game' action than these style of D&D games. It is better to keep the D&D games as role playing games ... playing the role of the character.

I'm really not interested in convincing you. I've made my points. If you don't liek that style of play, it is no skin off my nose. Good luck with your gaming.

 

[Scion]

hey, np, I just find the way that you rule it to be more or less completely unreasonable. But then I dont play in your games so have little to no say there

Not a huge deal, I will play it as I will, and I wont go through and counterpoint your points.

Have a good one.