Dire Lemming
First Post
Where do you get the idea that I'm confusing the character with the player? I hate the character. He's the kind of person that made me think of either murder, suicide, or both when I was in school.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Masters of the Arcane
- Thread starter Albedo
- Start date
Jemal
Adventurer
Whoa dude, again I reiterate with the not healthy.. you're hardly the only person who's been bullied, but if you don't at least try to stand up for yourself, then what's the point of complaining about it? There's a lot healthier ways to deal with it than murder/suicide. Kicking him in the nuts is much less psycho.
Dire Lemming
First Post
Notice the past tense. I didn't kill anyone, including myself. Probably because it was inconceivable at the time to actually do such a thing. But this is all clearly very politically incorrect discussion and will not be tollerated for long, so let's repress it and then wonder how something so horrible could have happened the next time some kid goes psycho with a gun at his high school until we get tired of thinking about it again, shall we?
I need to find a better place to bring this kind of stuff up...
I need to find a better place to bring this kind of stuff up...
Last edited:
Halford
First Post
Hmmm, yes Contingency is not well worded. My reasoning is this.
Contingency may notbe used for area effect damage spell. I have this from both the Sage and Wizards customer service. If that's not enough, and both of these sources have been known to be wrong, I think the example spells (featherfall, levitate, fly, teleport, and so forth) make it quite clear that area effects are not included - well to me at least. Given the fact that there are many area effects in the PHB which might have beenincluded you would think at least one would be given as an example...right? The reasoning that just because it does not specifically say it does not it works is decidedly more dangerous than its counterpart. Now if you were talking about a targeted dispel magic cast upon yourself I could see it...
More than anything it comes down to a poorly worded spell which is quite easily clarified if one uses a little common sense. The difference between Rules as Written and Rules as Intended I suppose might allow for a loophole, but it is at best disingenuous.
However, even if you disagree with that the chained dispel magic still does not work. Chain spell only effects spells that effect a single target with a range greater than touch -ergo no area effects, and there's no way a targeted dispel is effecting someone other than you and effecting you personally, plus it could not effect the same target more than once.
Contingency may notbe used for area effect damage spell. I have this from both the Sage and Wizards customer service. If that's not enough, and both of these sources have been known to be wrong, I think the example spells (featherfall, levitate, fly, teleport, and so forth) make it quite clear that area effects are not included - well to me at least. Given the fact that there are many area effects in the PHB which might have beenincluded you would think at least one would be given as an example...right? The reasoning that just because it does not specifically say it does not it works is decidedly more dangerous than its counterpart. Now if you were talking about a targeted dispel magic cast upon yourself I could see it...
More than anything it comes down to a poorly worded spell which is quite easily clarified if one uses a little common sense. The difference between Rules as Written and Rules as Intended I suppose might allow for a loophole, but it is at best disingenuous.
However, even if you disagree with that the chained dispel magic still does not work. Chain spell only effects spells that effect a single target with a range greater than touch -ergo no area effects, and there's no way a targeted dispel is effecting someone other than you and effecting you personally, plus it could not effect the same target more than once.
Vincent Tempes
First Post
Alrighty, where to begin.
First off, I can't find an online reference to the sage comment you discussed. If it was in dragon, fair enough, though I will point out that the sage has been repeatedly wrong about even basic questions. For example, the sage agreed, in direct contradiction to the PHB that you could Empower-Empower-Empower-Maximize a spell in a Dragon Mag about two years ago.
Wizards CustServ is a source I will never agree to using. They contradict each other often about even basic rulings.
The arguement that "Because they didn't include these spells, they don't work" Is a bad arguement. The four spells they picked for contingency are rediculously straight forward uses of the spell, and are all travel spells. There are hundreds of spells in the PHB that were not included, such as Shield, Fire Shield, Magic Circle etc.
Of course the reasoning for this in 3.5 is because they took the contingency spell nearly word for word from the second edition books. ^_^
My arguement isn't "They didn't say these don't work so it does", my arguement is they didn't specifically say "Only these spells work." It would have been very simple to say "Spells that ONLY affect the caster, or spells with a range of Personal or Touch" and specify that these spells only targeted the caster.
I agree entirely that its a poorly worded spell that could be clarified by the addition of a few words. That said, I don't see this as a loophole so much as a clever use of my spell.
And finally, you misread me. I'm not using Chained contingency spells. I am using the 9th level spell "Chain Contingency." Which functions as per contingency except that you can hold up to 3 6th level spells.
I chose 3 Greater Dispel Magic spells that used thier usual "Area" Effect, attempting to dispel one spell in their area until they succeed.
First off, I can't find an online reference to the sage comment you discussed. If it was in dragon, fair enough, though I will point out that the sage has been repeatedly wrong about even basic questions. For example, the sage agreed, in direct contradiction to the PHB that you could Empower-Empower-Empower-Maximize a spell in a Dragon Mag about two years ago.
Wizards CustServ is a source I will never agree to using. They contradict each other often about even basic rulings.
The arguement that "Because they didn't include these spells, they don't work" Is a bad arguement. The four spells they picked for contingency are rediculously straight forward uses of the spell, and are all travel spells. There are hundreds of spells in the PHB that were not included, such as Shield, Fire Shield, Magic Circle etc.
Of course the reasoning for this in 3.5 is because they took the contingency spell nearly word for word from the second edition books. ^_^
My arguement isn't "They didn't say these don't work so it does", my arguement is they didn't specifically say "Only these spells work." It would have been very simple to say "Spells that ONLY affect the caster, or spells with a range of Personal or Touch" and specify that these spells only targeted the caster.
I agree entirely that its a poorly worded spell that could be clarified by the addition of a few words. That said, I don't see this as a loophole so much as a clever use of my spell.
And finally, you misread me. I'm not using Chained contingency spells. I am using the 9th level spell "Chain Contingency." Which functions as per contingency except that you can hold up to 3 6th level spells.
I chose 3 Greater Dispel Magic spells that used thier usual "Area" Effect, attempting to dispel one spell in their area until they succeed.
Halford
First Post
Okay, with the precursor that I really don't care, and the understanding that I love a good rules arguement and am wrong at least as often as I am right....
No sorry not a clever usage. Its in the everyone tries it column, and it simply should not work. In the same "clever" category as players who try to use Shrink Item to drop giant anvils upon opponents. Its not clever its an abuse of the spell for something it was never intended to be able to do. If the designers had though of that usage would they have altered the spell? Probably in my view. Its one of the main reasons I go with the RPGA polymorph rules, which essentially ban all PHB polymorph spell effects. Of course I am not the DM so that is neither here or there
Its a clever usage in the way that using Polymorph any Object to turn a speck of dust over someones head into a huge boulder is. Its more that someone is prepared to exploit the rules for things they are not intended for. By your "clever" interpretation I can now have three fireballs contingent upon me saying the word "blammo." and I think we all know that was never the intent of the spell.
So I suppose if you believe it is reasonable to say that the creators meant it to be usable to trigger fireballs then your usage is justified. So do you? Really? Really believe that?
As for the customer service and sage ruleings they were in conjunction with a thread on the wizards site some months ago, which I was following rather than actively participating in. And sadly they really do mean bupdiddly, I know that I have recieved two different responses on the same question from them at least once.
My bad on my misinterpretaion of Chained Contingency - I had never heard of it. I am glad you pointed it out though! What book is it from, because for the life of me I can't find it. It does not come up on the Wizards spell index thingy.
No sorry not a clever usage. Its in the everyone tries it column, and it simply should not work. In the same "clever" category as players who try to use Shrink Item to drop giant anvils upon opponents. Its not clever its an abuse of the spell for something it was never intended to be able to do. If the designers had though of that usage would they have altered the spell? Probably in my view. Its one of the main reasons I go with the RPGA polymorph rules, which essentially ban all PHB polymorph spell effects. Of course I am not the DM so that is neither here or there
Its a clever usage in the way that using Polymorph any Object to turn a speck of dust over someones head into a huge boulder is. Its more that someone is prepared to exploit the rules for things they are not intended for. By your "clever" interpretation I can now have three fireballs contingent upon me saying the word "blammo." and I think we all know that was never the intent of the spell.
So I suppose if you believe it is reasonable to say that the creators meant it to be usable to trigger fireballs then your usage is justified. So do you? Really? Really believe that?
As for the customer service and sage ruleings they were in conjunction with a thread on the wizards site some months ago, which I was following rather than actively participating in. And sadly they really do mean bupdiddly, I know that I have recieved two different responses on the same question from them at least once.
My bad on my misinterpretaion of Chained Contingency - I had never heard of it. I am glad you pointed it out though! What book is it from, because for the life of me I can't find it. It does not come up on the Wizards spell index thingy.
Vincent Tempes
First Post
Just doing a quick update before I go to bed.
I do take some offense to the suggestion that I'm 'Exploiting, twinking, etc, etc.' Smart or innovative usage of the spells you have is not breaking the rules, it is utilizing them in a way the developers might not have concieved of when they developed the ability, I will give that much.
That said, I Rules as Intended? You'd have to ask Gygax that as its 3 editions back to the creation of that spell. As far as the 3rd ed version goes, I'd say the devs agree with me. The feat "Craft Contingency" is based off the concept of Contingency, and it specifically allows Area spells (They are centered in your square if they effect you.)
Finally, yes, I do believe that "Blammo" Should work. Keep in mind I wouldn't be targeting the fireball at the ogre 100 feet that way, I'd be dropping, in this case, three fireballs at my feet. Of course, I'd also probably have cast Protection from Fire first, making it a rather 'clever' combo.
As for where Chain Contingency is from... You know, I don't know =.=; I could have sworn it was reprinted in Spell Compendium but apparently it has not =(
If its an out of source spell I'm requesting permission or I'll drop it with appologies.
I do take some offense to the suggestion that I'm 'Exploiting, twinking, etc, etc.' Smart or innovative usage of the spells you have is not breaking the rules, it is utilizing them in a way the developers might not have concieved of when they developed the ability, I will give that much.
That said, I Rules as Intended? You'd have to ask Gygax that as its 3 editions back to the creation of that spell. As far as the 3rd ed version goes, I'd say the devs agree with me. The feat "Craft Contingency" is based off the concept of Contingency, and it specifically allows Area spells (They are centered in your square if they effect you.)
Finally, yes, I do believe that "Blammo" Should work. Keep in mind I wouldn't be targeting the fireball at the ogre 100 feet that way, I'd be dropping, in this case, three fireballs at my feet. Of course, I'd also probably have cast Protection from Fire first, making it a rather 'clever' combo.
As for where Chain Contingency is from... You know, I don't know =.=; I could have sworn it was reprinted in Spell Compendium but apparently it has not =(
If its an out of source spell I'm requesting permission or I'll drop it with appologies.
Walking Dad
First Post
I was forbidden to take the craft contingency feat (and DN's have no access to the contingency spell)
We weren't allowed to start with active spells (includes contingency).
We weren't allowed to start with active spells (includes contingency).
