Thwarting Mord's Disjunction with Contingency

[Crust]

OK...

They cannot be both "clear" and "complicated/convoluted".

Sure it can. Your condition was clearly stated, but too complicated for contingency to carry out.

Tell me, how does the spell -- which only knows about the universe out to "one magical atom" away from the wizard's skin, remember -- distinguish between: an arrow and a dagger; a fireball and falling into the campfire; a meteor swarm and a handful of coals from a fire?

Right… “one magical atom.” I almost forgot. The spell doesn’t know. That’s for the wizard to decide when he casts contingency. If the conditions are set to react to a physical blow (specifically a d20 roll that either does hp damage or is shrugged off by DR—the DM and player would have to come to an understanding about what a “physical blow” is), then a dragon’s breath or a lightning bolt would be ignored.

Because no explicit limits are stated. Nothing in the spell description limits the condition to things the wizard him/herself directly feels, experiences, or is aware of.

That’s true, but the fact that the range is personal and the target is “you” says a lot. The absence of any area of effect is also telling. The examples I gave help with filling in the gaps, and I might also add that a variety of Forgotten Realms novels, most-notably anything by Ed Greenwood, reinforce the examples found in the PHB and various other sources dating back over 10 years, two of which I already referenced.

The fact that these are the examples does not mean that they are the only possible examples.

How could I possibly assume that the examples given are the only possible examples? How could anyone assume that? I don’t mean to answer a question with a question (two questions, in fact), but seriously…

And it distinguishes from a heavy rain (or a bath) how?

Come on, should I have started a new paragraph to explain this? I was loosely referencing the PHB quote that you should already be familiar with. Fine, how about “dunked” in water or “submerged” in water. Better?

Gust of Wind? Jumping off a 10' wall on a windy day?

Gust of wind doesn’t simulate a drop in altitude, and yes, one could state, “If I fall five feet or more, a feather fall is cast upon me.” That would work fine.

The condition states "is successfully attacked", not "takes damage", and the spell goes off as an Immediate Interrupt, which means the F-to-S takes effect before the attack is completed, nullifying it.

I think we can all agree that a successful attack means overcoming the target’s AC, coming into contact with the foe. The write-up dates back to 2E, so the wording might be different. Semantics is for another forum.

Because it burns the contingency even if it's a L0 Commoner stabbing you with a spork. There's no point in wasting the contingency on a situation where you are not actually threatened.

You’ll have to take that up with Azalin. I suppose being a lich, commoners won’t be able to get close enough to Azalin to cause him any harm, so his contingency is tailored to thwart those who can fight through the lich’s minions and actually get within range to attack.

Stating "loss of mental faculties" protects against a whole wealth of conditions, as you note (sleep, feeblemind, etc)…

No. Elminster’s Evasion does not protect Elminster from loss of mental faculties. It teleports him to his safehold after he’s lost them. It’s up to the DM what that means exactly (Int at 1? Unconscious? Dominated?), in the same way that it’s up to the DM to identify what “successful attack” means in Azalin's case.

…while stating "any time anyone casts feeblemind at me" only protects against that single spell, and not Touch of Idiocy, etc.

This is a good example of a clearly-stated trigger that is too complicated for contingency to handle.

 

[NewJeffCT]

well, you're also stating things that go back 10+ years in your examples for contingencies, which was still in 2nd Edition. The game changed significantly when 3.0 came out in 2000, and then changed more with 3.5. It's changed further since, but this is the 3rd edition rules forum. However, there were no Swift & Immediate actions in 1E and 2E that could interrupt another's actions that I can recall.

 

[Crust]

So, because I use a 2E example to explain the importance of clear and uncomplicated triggers on a 3E contingency, my entire argument is invalid? I'm not convinced.

The game has certainly changed, but if you look at the books, you'll see that contingency hasn't changed. In fact, the 2E PHB, the original 2E PHB from 1989, bears an almost identical description of contingency when compared to the 3.5 version. The language is obviously not identical, but in all important matters involving triggers and game play, the spell is the same. The only difference is that the 2E version involves "casting time 1" and other 2E terminology, and the "plunged into water" trigger example involves an airy water spell rather than a water breathing spell. Contingency functions exactly the same today as it did at least 20 years ago. The manner in which the spell can be implemented based on updated game rules has certainly changed (the immediate action, for example), but the spell description, the expectation and examples of triggers and spells to be cast on the wizard, level caps, etc... It’s all the same.

The absence of immediate actions in 2E is irrelevant in terms of my argument. Azalin's contingency doesn't involve that, and Elminster's Evasion would still function if El spoke "Thaele." The fact that he can't do so as an immediate action in 2E has nothing to do with my argument about clearly-stated triggers that are uncomplicated.

This might be the 3E forum, but to think that any 2E examples are invalid, especially concerning a spell that hasn't changed since 2E, seems rather shaky. My examples are more than valid, and the fact that the examples I gave are reinforced by 20 years of rulebooks and novels, that makes my argument valid as well.

 

[Crust]

You are, of course, free to make whatever ruling you like, but there is nothing in the text of the spell or the game's other rules that supports this claim.

But if that's how contingency works in your game, then I agree your player's idea won't work and your "make a Spellcraft check to identify the spell" proposal is a fine one.

I was going to let this go, but I must know, for my own clarification and understanding of contingency, how do you explain your theory? There's nothing in any rulebook that I've ever seen that supports the opposing interpretation of the spell (a contingency firing when someone targets the wizard with a spell). My interpretation draws upon multiple examples from 20 years of published material to fill in the slight gaps left in the contingency description.

No one has explained to me, exactly and with relevant, published examples, how a contingency would be able to kick on simply by another human being targeting the protected wizard, which amounts to the protected wizard being looked at. How does a contingency fire spontaneously when someone looks at the protected wizard? Someone explain that to me, please.

And saying, "It just does," is not a valid response. And please, let's not waste time arguing whether or not "It just does" is a valid response.

 

[Elethiomel]

No one has explained to me, exactly and with relevant, published examples, how a contingency would be able to kick on simply by another human being targeting the protected wizard, which amounts to the protected wizard being looked at. How does a contingency fire spontaneously when someone looks at the protected wizard? Someone explain that to me, please.

And saying, "It just does," is not a valid response. And please, let's not waste time arguing whether or not "It just does" is a valid response.

By magic.

Seriously, "Elminster's different spell can't" is just as invalid. In effect you're saying "it just doesn't". You are setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of what is a valid response and what isn't, and trying to squash any dissent by calling it a waste of time.

Here are some spells with target: You that interact with things far away from your body, all from the PHB:

Arcane Sight. This allows the caster to see magical auras within 120 feet. But according to you, a spell with "Target: You" cannot sense anything more than one magical atom away from the caster.
Augury, Divination. These spells predict the future, yet they have "Target: You".
Commune, Contact Other Plane. Work across planes.
Commune with Nature. 1 mile per caster level in outdoors environs.
Mirror Image. This not only detects things in the world outside its range and target, but produce effects in that scope as well, all without the caster's direct intervention. Additionally, it's level 1.
Shield. Only deflects one sort of spell, and only when it is targeted at you.
Stone Tell. Allows you to speak with stone, and the stone is not part of the area or target entries of the spell.
Tree Stride. Senses trees to great distances, way outside the range and target entries of the spell.

As I hope my many examples show, there is no inherent limit to the range of magical awareness of an "Area: Personal, Target: You" spell. Any such limit is clearly called out in the spell description. No such limit is called out in Contingency. This may be designer oversight, or rules as intended; we don't know. You are adding a limit that isn't there in the rules.

In addition, even if we run with your magical atom theory, why can't these magical atoms detect sound waves, light, or whatever Darkvision detects, and let the spell make judgements based on that? And, to follow further in your footsteps, "they just can't" is an invalid response.

 

[Starbuck_II]

I think we can all agree that a successful attack means overcoming the target’s AC, coming into contact with the foe. The write-up dates back to 2E, so the wording might be different. Semantics is for another forum.

But in 3.5 a successful attack is any successful attack not just AC attacks.
Look at invisibility.
If you cast Fireball on him: if he is affected, then the contingency activates.
Now SR would stop this, but that is it (maybe immunity to fire but he doesn't have that).

In 3.5, that means any attack.

 

[Crust]

I'm sorry to keep this up, but I'm obviously not explaining myself well enough.

By magic.

This doesn't explain how. Does the contingency send out invisible feelers to surround everyone near the protected wizard, making sure that no one tries anything or the contingency goes off? Again, how does contingency know to fire spontaneously if another targets the protected wizard? "By magic" is an explanation given to children to explain how Santa's reindeer fly. I'm hoping for a stronger explanation, one that is reinforced by published material.

Seriously, "Elminster's different spell can't" is just as invalid. In effect you're saying "it just doesn't". You are setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of what is a valid response and what isn't, and trying to squash any dissent by calling it a waste of time.

How can you equate the examples I've already given as "it just doesn't"? Have you read my posts? Let's go down the list of examples I've already given:

1. The PHB (from the 1989 2E to the 2003 3.5 PHB) examples of dunking in water or falling. In both cases, the contingency surrounding the wizard is stimulated, causing it to fire and protect the wizard.
2. The six triggers in Elminster's evasion. Again, you'd think a wizard like Elminster would set a trigger like this: "If anyone tries to target me with a spell, I'm teleported away." The Old Mage didn't do that. Why? Not because he's a stupid wizard (far from it), but because contingency magic doesn't work that way. If it did, the PHB would provide an example similar to, "Whenever I'm targeted with a spell, I'm teleported away/an antimagic field springs into being/[insert spell here]."
3. Azalin the Lich's trigger.

Those three examples are far, far from approaching "it just doesn't." It boggles my mind that anyone reading this forum would take my examples as "it just doesn't."

Here are some spells with target: You that interact with things far away from your body, all from the PHB:

Arcane Sight. This allows the caster to see magical auras within 120 feet. But according to you, a spell with "Target: You" cannot sense anything more than one magical atom away from the caster.
Augury, Divination. These spells predict the future, yet they have "Target: You".
Commune, Contact Other Plane. Work across planes.
Commune with Nature. 1 mile per caster level in outdoors environs.

These are divination spells. And what is arcane sight to a wizard with no eyes? What is commune to a cleric who is deaf (assuming commune requires regular conversation)? In the case of divination, the magic draws the information to the wizard, and it's clear how those spells work. The only thing these divination spells have in common with contingency (aside from having a target as “you”) is that they're all found in the PHB.

Mirror Image. This not only detects things in the world outside its range and target, but produce effects in that scope as well, all without the caster's direct intervention. Additionally, it's level 1.

This is the 3.5 mirror image? The spell is level 2, not 1, and I can't imagine how you'd gather that illusion magic is detecting anything. That doesn’t make sense.

Shield. Only deflects one sort of spell, and only when it is targeted at you.

"...only when it is targeted at you." This is incorrect. When the magic missile strikes the shield spell, then and only then is the missile deflected. Shield doesn't stop the caster from targeting the protected wizard no more than contingency stops the caster from targeting the protected wizard. Shield functions totally differently than contingency, so again, I have no idea what point this proves.

Stone Tell. Allows you to speak with stone, and the stone is not part of the area or target entries of the spell.
Tree Stride. Senses trees to great distances, way outside the range and target entries of the spell.

How does this counter my argument? Stone tell and tree stride have their own list of parameters, just like ray of frost, magic missile, and miracle. Your list doesn't help or hinder the argument in any way.

I don't know why you'd list any of these spells, really. There are plenty of spells with the target "you," but your response still doesn't explain how a contingency can identify when some other person is casting a spell at the protected wizard, making a rude gesture at the protected wizard, or sneaking up on the wizard with a knife.

As I hope my many examples show, there is no inherent limit to the range of magical awareness of an "Area: Personal, Target: You" spell.

This is obvious in the case of divination magic. Contingency is not divination. My observation that contingency has a range of "personal," a target of "you," and no area of effect was only one small clue that helps my argument along, but it's nowhere near as effective as the three examples I've given above from multiple PHBs and a variety of other published sources.

Any such limit is clearly called out in the spell description. No such limit is called out in Contingency. This may be designer oversight, or rules as intended; we don't know. You are adding a limit that isn't there in the rules.

This is also incorrect. The examples given in the PHB make it clear that contingency can't spot other people preparing to do harm to the protected wizard. If contingency could do that, one of the examples in the PHB would show that.

In addition, even if we run with your magical atom theory, why can't these magical atoms detect sound waves, light, or whatever Darkvision detects, and let the spell make judgments based on that?

The magical atom analogy was used to convey the idea that the magic of contingency does not extend out beyond the wizard, stretching its tendrils out to identify outside influences working against the caster. If contingency had an area-of-effect radius of, say, 100', further stating that if anyone in that 100' radius grew hostile toward the wizard, contingency would target them, firing off should any of those threats inside the radius menace the caster. Clearly this isn't the case, and keep in mind that this hasn't been the case in 20 years. One would think that such an oversight or typo would have been corrected since 1989. That hasn't happened, so there's absolutely zero reason to think that the game designers goofed up on the spell's description in the 3.5 PHB.

And, to follow further in your footsteps, "they just can't" is an invalid response.

Again, the examples I've given in previous posts should make it clear to you that I'm not adopting the view of "they just can't." If you've read my posts, I can't imagine how you'd come to that conclusion.

It would be really great if a game designer with his/her name in the credits of a rulebook would chime in and give us a professional's opinion on this debacle.

 

[Elethiomel]

I"By magic" is an explanation given to children to explain how Santa's reindeer fly. I'm hoping for a stronger explanation, one that is reinforced by published material.

Then you need a better argument for your side first. Your examples all "support" your side of the argument by not covering this possible use of contingency at all. Note that in many places in the published material examples are specifically called out on how a spell does not work. This is not the case here, so the examples neither prove or disprove any side of this argument.

How can you equate the examples I've already given as "it just doesn't"? Have you read my posts? Let's go down the list of examples I've already given:

1. The PHB (from the 1989 2E to the 2003 3.5 PHB) examples of dunking in water or falling. In both cases, the contingency surrounding the wizard is stimulated, causing it to fire and protect the wizard.

Irrelevant. There are more situations for most rules than can be reasonably covered by examples.

2. The six triggers in Elminster's evasion. Again, you'd think a wizard like Elminster would set a trigger like this: "If anyone tries to target me with a spell, I'm teleported away." The Old Mage didn't do that. Why? Not because he's a stupid wizard (far from it), but because contingency magic doesn't work that way. If it did, the PHB would provide an example similar to, "Whenever I'm targeted with a spell, I'm teleported away/an antimagic field springs into being/[insert spell here]."

No. If Elminster had that condition in his list it would be the dumbest list ever for a wizard to take. What if he needed healing? What if he was cursed through non-spell means? What if he needed another helpful spell cast on him? He would instantly be teleported back to his sanctum. By wording the triggers in the way that he did, he's made his escape back to his sanctum as flexible as possible while allowing helpful spells and other effects cast on him. You are second-guessing the motivations of a character in a specific setting, and using that second-guessing as an example to support your side of the argument.

3. Azalin the Lich's trigger.

See above.

Those three examples are far, far from approaching "it just doesn't." It boggles my mind that anyone reading this forum would take my examples as "it just doesn't."

It boggles my mind that anyone reading them would think them relevant to the interpretation of Contingency at all, beyond the obvious "yes, Contingency can be used to cast Water Breating on myself if I'm immersed in water".

These are divination spells. And what is arcane sight to a wizard with no eyes? What is commune to a cleric who is deaf (assuming commune requires regular conversation)? In the case of divination, the magic draws the information to the wizard, and it's clear how those spells work. The only thing these divination spells have in common with contingency (aside from having a target as “you”) is that they're all found in the PHB.

I see you're making assumptions on other spells and how they work. Why do you assume that the communication with another plane is auditory?

The magic draws the information to the wizard? But how? It can't extend past the one-magic-atom border around the wizard, according to you.

This is the 3.5 mirror image? The spell is level 2, not 1, and I can't imagine how you'd gather that illusion magic is detecting anything. That doesn’t make sense.

The level was a typo, I apologise for that.
When struck, the figment disappears. Figments have no physical presence so they cannot be destroyed by physical means, ergo the spell must detect when they are struck in order to make them disappear (usually interacting with an illusion gives you a saving throw). In addition, the figments seem to react normally to area attacks and such. How could they know an area attack struck them if they don't know whether that figment in particular was included in the spell's area?

"...only when it is targeted at you." This is incorrect. When the magic missile strikes the shield spell, then and only then is the missile deflected. Shield doesn't stop the caster from targeting the protected wizard no more than contingency stops the caster from targeting the protected wizard. Shield functions totally differently than contingency, so again, I have no idea what point this proves.

In the spell text it says: "It negates magic missile attacks directed at you." So if a magic missile travels through your square, but is not directed at you, the shield spell doesn't stop them. How does the shield spell know whether the magic missile is directed at you? According to you, it is impossible, so this spell is impossible as written.

How does this counter my argument? Stone tell and tree stride have their own list of parameters, just like ray of frost, magic missile, and miracle. Your list doesn't help or hinder the argument in any way.

It is a list of examples that show that "range: personal target: you" spells do not have the limited sensory capabilities you ascribe to them as a group.

I don't know why you'd list any of these spells, really. There are plenty of spells with the target "you," but your response still doesn't explain how a contingency can identify when some other person is casting a spell at the protected wizard, making a rude gesture at the protected wizard, or sneaking up on the wizard with a knife.

And I don't have to. You have to prove how it can't. And you have yet to do so. I am trying to show you that your one-magical-atom theory is misguided.

This is obvious in the case of divination magic. Contingency is not divination. My observation that contingency has a range of "personal," a target of "you," and no area of effect was only one small clue that helps my argument along, but it's nowhere near as effective as the three examples I've given above from multiple PHBs and a variety of other published sources.

Your examples are as I have already explained to you completely irrelevant. They don't prove or disprove either side of this argument because examples are not all-inclusive.

This is also incorrect. The examples given in the PHB make it clear that contingency can't spot other people preparing to do harm to the protected wizard. If contingency could do that, one of the examples in the PHB would show that.

Examples aren't all-inclusive. They can't be. An example shows one possible use of a spell; why you would think there would have to be examples for all possible uses of a spell defeats me.

The magical atom analogy was used to convey the idea that the magic of contingency does not extend out beyond the wizard, stretching its tendrils out to identify outside influences working against the caster. If contingency had an area-of-effect radius of, say, 100', further stating that if anyone in that 100' radius grew hostile toward the wizard, contingency would target them, firing off should any of those threats inside the radius menace the caster. Clearly this isn't the case, and keep in mind that this hasn't been the case in 20 years. One would think that such an oversight or typo would have been corrected since 1989. That hasn't happened, so there's absolutely zero reason to think that the game designers goofed up on the spell's description in the 3.5 PHB.

If they didn't goof it up it means your interpretation is incorrect, as there is no limitation stipulated on the conditions that can trigger the Contingency. We are discussing the 3.5 rules here, not any other edition's rules. I fail to see how other editions' versions of Contingency impinge on 3.5 Contingency.

Also the spell doesn't need magical tendrils. It only needs to interpret light and sound that hits the caster. That doesn't interact with your range issue at all.

There is nothing in the spell as written or in the example given that would indicate that the spell cannot also detect any other condition, though.

Again, the examples I've given in previous posts should make it clear to you that I'm not adopting the view of "they just can't." If you've read my posts, I can't imagine how you'd come to that conclusion.

I can't imagine how you would interpret examples to override rules text in areas they do not cover.

It would be really great if a game designer with his/her name in the credits of a rulebook would chime in and give us a professional's opinion on this debacle.

Unless it's the lead designer or the designer of Contingency, they have no final word on the issue. Some postmodernists would say that even that would not be sufficient (ref. Death Of The Author - Television Tropes & Idioms ) and that only published material (and material recognised as equivalent to published material, such as errata) is relevant.

 

[Crust]

Wshew... It's getting hot in here.

To sum it up for anyone just joining us: A contingency parameter such as: "Whenever a disjunction is cast at me..." is doomed to fail because as soon as that parameter is met, the contingency is disjoined, and the antimagic field it carries dies stillborn. The wizard would have to use the immediate-action power word or finger snap to beat the casting of disjunction, which is a standard action casting requiring only a verbal component.

All I'm asking is for some published material that provides an example or errata that would allow contingency to immediately, spontaneously, cast antimagic field when disjunction has already been cast on a prior initiative count. I've asked for that about three times already. Give me the book or magazine title and volume, and provide page numbers if the information is obscure. Instead of tearing apart my posts and calling published material irrelevant (which is beyond absurd), find a source that backs up the opposing view, and I'll adjust my reasoning accordingly. I promise you that.

 

[Your mom]

I concur.