Thwarting Mord's Disjunction with Contingency

[cheshire_grin]

Your initiative idea is just plain wrong. A contingency is, effectively, a readied action. Thus no matter the initiative count of whatever action activates it, it interrupts that action, just as any readied action does.

As for how it works, I'm not sure why "it's magic" isn't a valid answer. Can you explain in detail how "Contact Other Plane" works? Stoneskin? Wish? Teleport? Magic Missile?

They're magic. If you can explain how they work, they're not magic, they're science.

Alternatively: quantum entanglement. Really tiny, really fast gnomes. Who cares, the interpretation is never contradicted by published text, or you'd have quoted it already.

It may not work that way in your game, but to argue that the published text somehow places limits despite never, in any context, actually enumerating those limits is pretty astonishing.

 

[Vegepygmy]

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.

Sez you.

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.

No errata is necessary, since the RAW doesn't say what you seem to think it does. An example would be great, but its absence doesn't prove anything either way, and I'm sorry, but I don't have one.

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.

If you find a source that actually backs up your interpretation (not a source that is merely consistent with both interpretations, but actually limits the spell in the way you claim), I'll adjust my reasoning accordingly. I promise you that.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

The text of the spell doesn't in any way define or restrict the condition under which the Contingency pops off, other than it must be "clear", may be "general", and should not be "complicated or convoluted."

It's rather vague, and ripe for DM interpretation

(edited: corrected the argument to address AOE rather than targeted spells.)
I think it's arguable that it simply depends upon how magic works in a particular game, canon notwithstanding. IMHO, "Put up Antimagic Field if I am in range of a casting of Disjunction" seems reasonable to me. To rationalize off the top of my head, I can envision that Contingency surrounds the user with some sort of "sensory field" the specific qualities of which are defined by the condition set at casting time. I could also imagine that the act of casting puts out "Disjunction-flavored" ripples in the ambient magical field, to "shape" the area of effect so the spell can discharge properly. The Contigency field identifies these ripples as Disjunction-flavored, and puts up the Antimagic Field before the torrent of disruptive energies are released. Or something (yes, I think about stuff like this. I'm broken. )

Lots of holes in that, I'm sure, but point is that it's easy to envision a magic system wherein lots of invisible pseudo-sciency stuff happens during casting, effectively turning a spell into a chain of little causes and effects and interactions which can be detected, interrupted, manipulated, etc.

 

[Vegepygmy]

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).

StreamOfTheSky explained my theory perfectly in the 4th post to this thread. Contingency works (or can work) just like a readied action.

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.

You're really asking someone to explain to you how magic works in an imaginary game world? Really?

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.

I agree that would be a waste of time. Of course it is. That's the bleeping definition of "magic."

 

[Crust]

If contingency gave the wizard a readied action, the words "readied action" would most-definitely appear in the spell's description at least by the time the 3.5 errata was released. Readied actions aren't often assumed.

Consider also that contingency is an evocation spell, not a divination spell. If contingency was a divination spell, then I could possibly see how it could spontaneously react to forces that it could detect through some version of blindsight that extends out to ___ radius (keep in mind that the PHB makes no mention of this). Evocation magic, on the other hand, is blind, deaf, and dumb. Contingency sits on the wizard like a dynamite vest, waiting for the outside world or the wizard it's riding to set it off. The disjunction touches the contingency first, wiping it out, taking the stillborn antimagic field and all other magic with it. Disjunction --> contingency (antimagic field) = disjoined wizard (keeping in mind that the immediate action power word trigger on the wizard's part would trump the disjunction).

Now, keep in mind that I'm not planning on dumping disjunctions on my party anytime soon. Believe me, I can't afford to disjoin my party. I'm not sure they'd survive (or continue playing) very long after that. Though, if I do ever plan on using disjunction, it will be strictly a story-based decision and perhaps lead to the end of a long, epic campaign where magical items are really not necessary.

 

[widow]

I am a player in said game (a certain gloura), but dont have much stock in the end decision. But here is what I would do as the caster and how I would interrupt it as the DM. First these are my assumptions.

1) The contigency spell just knows what is going on. It might not be all knowing, but pretty close.
2) The wizard does not have to know what is going on. Condition met, spell goes off. Using the blow off limb example (and not the pile of other contingencies), if you turn the mage to stone and blow off the limb, he does not know it. The spell will still go off. If it was that easy, he could just cover his ears and eyes when another player wants to do something that would set off a contingency (have to do practice drills to, so he never knows when it will really happen).
3) You can setup a contingency that interrupts something potentionally, but if the conditions are if x happens, then it will not do it before x happens.

One last step, I would like to refer everyone to the counter spell section of the SRD. Casting Spells :: d20srd.org

Now yes, you must be aware for counterspells and have an action readied. But the counterspell listing clearly stats that there is a point when the casting of the spell is begining, but not yet cast. This is the point at which you can interceed, for counterspelling. More importantly when my contingency could go off, because contingency is always ready.

Starting simple... I would word my contingency spell so that it would cast antimagic field when "Someone other than me begins to cast Disjunction."

This would not interrupt someone from begining to cast the spell, but it would go off before they completed the spell. Similar to counterspell.

Now these instructions are not quite specific enough. We have to get more specific. You could simply change it to include "Someone other than me begins to cast Disjunction that would place me in the area of effect." or "Someone is begining to cast disjunction that would place me in the area of effect." The second is perfect as long as you dont plan on wanting to be in the disjunction. Now we are alot closer to our goal; and for me, that would be enough.

But lets take this a step further. Say the DM's interruptation is that is not specific enough. Maybe contingency cannot figure out the target of disjunction. Then I would switch to this: "When someone or something other than me begins to cast disjunction within 150ft of me."

Disjunction has a range of 25 feet +5ft/2 levels with a radius of 40 feet. Assuming a caster level of 30, that would 100 foot range with a 40 foot radius. I padded an extra 10 feet incase the caster has an ioun stone or something to boost caster level. Tell the other players and any allies you deem necessary, or add them to your list of other than's.

I believe that would cover it for spell casting, because once again:

1) Contingency knows what is going on
2) Wizard does not need to know
3) Contingency is fast, but conditions still must be met
4) There is a point before a spell is cast that things can act and contingency will if directed


It is a whole different matter I guess if there is a trap that is activated or it is a supernatural ability instead of spell or spell-like (spell-like can be countered so I am not going to lenghten my conditions to include that, I leave it to said wizard). Not to mention Epic spells and Etrudent tricks of spell emulation.

Note, I would perfer if the DM gave the party down time to buy stuff and wizard bought (or paid extra to add it to existing equipment) the original greater counterspell ring from the Arms and equipment book with disjunction cast in it. It only stops the first one, but if they are spamming disjunction, at least they are not casting some other 9th level spell at your repeatedly. No need for interrupation there.

P.S. I contingency that my Gloura PC gains a number of bonus xp no less than 5,000 xp points and no more than 10,000 xp points if my logic stands as written. Legal stuff, I reserve the right to edit anything I wrote above or within this sentence in such a fashion that it retroactively counts as the original logic written.

Ha. Editted once already.

 

[Crust]

You're a funny guy, Widow. I like you. That's why I'm going to disjoin you last.

Firstly, that link doesn't even have the word contingency in it anywhere on the page. Contingency doesn't function like counterspell. Wouldn't that be apples and oranges? Or at least apples and pears?

Secondly, I disagree with the statement "Contingency knows what's going on." Certainly the spell description says nothing specific about the awareness level of the contingency. The best we get are words like "general" and phrases like "some condition you dictate" and something similar to wish, where if the wording is "complicated and convoluted," the contingency "may" fail somehow. "May" fail. I'm quoting the revised 3.5 SRD here. What kind of concrete explanation is that? It's up to the DM to step in at this moment and make sure abuse doesn't take place.

We're talking about evocation magic here. Does a wall of force know what's going on? A fireball? Magic missiles, do they know what's going on? Even a forceful hand that follows its foe is as dumb as a doorknob, as it only functions at the direction of the caster and doesn't make decisions on its own. Evocation spells are mindless tools that are used to get the job done, not detect and be aware of a variety of things at range. Contingency is no different.

Now, players will, of course, take this lovely ambiguity and take it to the Nth degree as has been shown by a certain previous post. DM's, on the other hand, have a tendency to reign in overgeneralizations on the part of the over-eager player. Of course a player is going to jump at the chance to take advantage of a poorly-worded spell. It's the DM's job to counter that potential for abuse by setting logical boundaries based on published examples from a variety of sources spanning over 20 years.

Again, I don't see any evidence (something that is not an anonymous message board post) that suggests to me that contingency would react to a person casting a spell 50, 20, 5, 1 foot away from the wizard. Even if the hostile wizard spoke a disjunction directly into the ear of the protected wizard, contingency would not save him/her from the disjunction, because the disjunction is cast first, the contingency is hit second, and then all magic dies (including the hostile wizard's magic, of course, but the example stands). Magical items and other means certainly exist to thwart disjunction, but in the case of a cause-and-effect, if X happens contingency and no immediate-action trigger is set, the disjunction will be cast, travel toward the wizard instantaneously and settle about the wizard, giving him enough time to inhale before his contingency sputters, fizzles, and dies along with all of the wizard's spells and magical items, barring any artifacts. His next thought might (and perhaps should) be, "Hmph, shoulda set that to go off with a power word."

 

[widow]

Firstly, that link doesn't even have the word contingency in it anywhere on the page. Contingency doesn't function like counterspell. Wouldn't that be apples and oranges? Or at least apples and pears?

This is to establish two things only. One, there is a begining of casting before a spell goes off. Two, there is time during which you can interceed. I don't want to compare mechanics of counterspell and disjunction, they are not the same thing as you pointed out. Just that there is time in which to do something before the spells goes off. Also note my condition would be when someone begins to cast, not after someone casts. This distinction is discribed in the counter spell rules so I brought it out.

Secondly, I disagree with the statement "Contingency knows what's going on." Certainly the spell description says nothing specific about the awareness level of the contingency. The best we get are words like "general" and phrases like "some condition you dictate" and something similar to wish, where if the wording is "complicated and convoluted," the contingency "may" fail somehow. "May" fail. I'm quoting the revised 3.5 SRD here. What kind of concrete explanation is that? It's up to the DM to step in at this moment and make sure abuse doesn't take place.

We're talking about evocation magic here. Does a wall of force know what's going on? A fireball? Magic missiles, do they know what's going on? Even a forceful hand that follows its foe is as dumb as a doorknob, as it only functions at the direction of the caster and doesn't make decisions on its own. Evocation spells are mindless tools that are used to get the job done, not detect and be aware of a variety of things at range. Contingency is no different.

Contingency must know something, otherwise it would never go off. I understand the rules are ambigous, but it must must know what is going on to some degree. How does it tell you are dead, if you have arms, if you even exist other than that you are the target of it on casting. I understand you should not setup your contingency when god x on plane y does z I want you to tell me. But the spell must know something or even elminster's examples would fail to work in every case.

The conditions needed to bring the spell into effect must be clear, although they can be general. In all cases, the contingency immediately brings into effect the companion spell, the latter being “cast” instantaneously when the prescribed circumstances occur.

and

Even if the hostile wizard spoke a disjunction directly into the ear of the protected wizard, contingency would not save him/her from the disjunction, because the disjunction is cast first, the contingency is hit second, and then all magic dies (including the hostile wizard's magic, of course, but the example stands). Magical items and other means certainly exist to thwart disjunction, but in the case of a cause-and-effect, if X happens contingency and no immediate-action trigger is set, the disjunction will be cast, travel toward the wizard instantaneously and settle about the wizard, giving him enough time to inhale before his contingency sputters, fizzles, and dies along with all of the wizard's spells and magical items, barring any artifacts. His next thought might (and perhaps should) be, "Hmph, shoulda set that to go off with a power word."

Again you missed my contingency. When someone begins to cast the spell. Not after the spell. I agree, if disjunction has already gone off, contingency is dead. I am working in that time before the spell is released which exists as per the counterspell example. Contingency happens immediately, and as you stated, it does not specify a specific action type for this. That means it happens as described, immediately. Since disjunction has yet to be cast (mage still wiggling fingers), antimagic goes before the spell is released because the conditions have already been met. Immediate is the description, I am sticking with that word for word.

I really hope the contingency pick something that is happening within a few hundred feet. What if I made a contingency to teleport me to my doorstep if my wizards tower checks on fire. That does not seem unreasonable, but I may be several hundred miles away. Now there is where bad wording can cause it to fail, if you are on another plane when it happened or out of teleport range, teleport would not cut it. If in teleport range, you should be able to make it home.

Time for my Andy Rooney... We established that there is time between the begining of casting and the release of the spell. During this time things can be done for intervention (if you respond, comment on this first). I believe an immediate antimagic field is possible with the appropiate contingency. What you seek beyond that is specific examples and limitations on contingency conditions. The book lists none, you insist players give the rules quote. So I propose you show us the rules quote.

1)What is the range or distance from you contigency can "sense" things.
2) What is the list of things it can sense.
3) what is the exact speed in which it acts mechanically (I believe it is exactly as stated, immediately).

The problem is this stuff does not exist. There is no wrong or right answer (well, except that there is time from when someone begins to cast a spell and they finish envoking it ). And I know "Rules as Written" verse "Rules as Intended" can have scary abuse, but I don't see contigency saying conditions listed can only be things that have happened to your body past tense. I do understand Elminster's Evasion example, but that is a different spell with conditions he thought were good. He obviously never had a wizards tower fire, all those spell components lost.

Lol, this reminds me of my cruelity during character building. Someone tells me what they want, and I tell them there is a feat for that. They ask where, I say I don't know, but I know I have seen it. Please go find it for me. (I really have seen it when I tell them that, just there are too many books and mags). It is worse for me though, trying to remeber what weird splat book with the campaign ending spell in it .... Oops thinking out loud again.

PS As per your response, I am assuming that is a second vote for down time and equipment buying? Also I believe I should get 3/4 of the xp reward because as per my previous post with the 1-4, you only seem to be disagreeing with #1.

 

[Elethiomel]

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.

Okay, sure. I get that that is hard to swallow. But why don't you address the fact that your examples simply do not cover the situation, rather than claim that they definitely cover the situation by not covering the situation?

An example is not needed. The rules text is unclear. It is up to each individual GM to interpret it one way or the other. To claim that examples that do not cover the situation prove that the situation is impossible is untenable.

 

[Herzog]

From the Complete Arcane, p. 139:

Triggers for contingent spells are usually events that happen to the bearer of the spell <snip>​

(emphasis mine) indicating that triggers for contingent spells can be events that happen to someone/something else.

That said: This is text explaining Contingent spells created with the Craft Contingent Spell feat, and not the contingency spell.
Also, the text doesn't actually supply any examples for triggers that happen to someone/something else.