Thwarting Mord's Disjunction with Contingency

[NewJeffCT]

Lastly, don't worry about why or why not Elminster would set up this or that contingency. Your job, folks, is to find evidence that supports the idea that contingency will instantaneously, spontaneously interrupt a casting like a counterspell, use of a readied action or immediate action without the wizard himself taking action, etc. None of your responses to my posts do this, so if you don't have evidence, this conversation is over.

It's been over for some time now, actually.

I just gave you the ring of counterspells in my previous post - goes off automatically, without any knowledge of the wearer. No exceptions noted, automatically counters any spell. Why is contingency not like that?

 

[Crust]

Because contingency and counterspelling work under a different set of rules, as anyone would see after doing a bit of reading.

Counterspelling relies on the wizard taking a readied action. Contingency does not grant an automatic readied action. Others have suggested that it does, but the fact is that contingency does not grant an automatic readied action. If it did, such would be made clear in the spell's description.

Now, the wizard can certainly set his contingency to fire with a power word, and THEN take a readied action, firing the contingency whenever appropriate, but the contingency itself does not give a readied action. The wizard would have to set a power word trigger that he can activate consciously, either as a readied action, an immediate action, or a standard action, but if the trigger is stated as “If X happens, then my contingency fires,” that X cannot be “A person casting a spell,” because contingency cannot interrupt a casting all by itself. It’s the wizard who must interrupt the casting with either a readied action counterspell, a ring of counterspells, or an immediate action power word trigger contingency.

The ring of counterspells, the ring of spell battle, and a variety of other items work under their own set of rules, and those rules have nothing to do with contingency.

To say that contingency acts like a ring of counterspells is a house rule at best.

 

[NewJeffCT]

So, you are saying that the Contingency spell is far less powerful than a minor magic item like the Ring of Counterspells? The ring of counterspells is listed as a minor item in the DMG, and does work automatically - so, if the wearer were sleeping and targeted with Disjunction (or fireball or horrid wilting), it could be countered by a Dispel Magic. Earlier in the thread, you had said there was no way a spell could be so aware as to go off automatically without some sort of trigger... I gave you two examples of being able to do it - once with a spell (Intellect Fortress) and once with an item (Ring of Counterspells).

However, according to you, this cannot happen unless the caster/manifester or ring wearer can actually trigger their response first, similar to how your interpretation of Contingency where you must first be affected before the trigger is to be activated.

Similarly, a ring of spell turning would be useless against the all powerful disjunction because the ring would be de-activated before it got a chance to be reflected. Or, Armor of Great Reflection would also be useless, as the armor has to be touched & disjoined before it can reflect the spell back. And, a Rod of Absorbtion risks being disjoined before it even absorbs the spell.

 

[Abciximab]

It is clear from the wording of Crusts last few posts that he accepts his interpretation of Contingency as canon, I think it's time to give up trying to convince him otherwise and let this thread quietly slip away.

 

[Crust]

1. The ring of counterspells can't hold a disjunction or a horrid wilting, making your argument invalid. And even if the ring could hold a disjunction... (see point #2)

2. The ring of counterspells is not a spell, it's a magical item that duplicates an action not a spell, so using it to help explain contingency is illogical.

3. How does a ring of counterspells being a minor magical item suggest or confirm that contingency functions like a ring of counterspelling? That makes no sense at all.

Abciximab, I'm sorry if I don't blindly follow suggestions based on zero evidence, but I actually prefer enlightenment over ignorance. It should be clear to anyone who understands the game and has actually read all of the posts on this thread that my interpretation is based solely on existing data and that all opposing viewpoints have been unable to bring any data that confirms any other interpretation.

 

[Theroc]

Crust, I don't find your opinion very enlightened at all. I don't agree with your premise or your opinion on how this works.

I'm no expert, but you seem to simply dismiss everyone else's opinion out of hand regardless of how reasoned it is, and state your opinion as the default. That doesn't make you right, but it does make it evident that this discussion is pretty much concluded, since you already know how you intend to rule the spell.

 

[Abciximab]

Abciximab, I'm sorry if I don't blindly follow suggestions based on zero evidence

You base it solely on your opinions and interpretations and call it fact.

 

[NewJeffCT]

1. The ring of counterspells can't hold a disjunction or a horrid wilting, making your argument invalid. And even if the ring could hold a disjunction... (see point #2)

2. The ring of counterspells is not a spell, it's a magical item that duplicates an action not a spell, so using it to help explain contingency is illogical.

3. How does a ring of counterspells being a minor magical item suggest or confirm that contingency functions like a ring of counterspelling? That makes no sense at all.

The ring of counterspells can be used to counter-act a disjunction or horrid wilting via a Dispel Magic or Greater Dispel Magic.

I had said that it's a minor magic item to show that if a mere minor item can counteract a 9th level spell, why can't a mid-to-high level spell?

And, why can't I word my Contingency spell so it duplicates the action of a Ring of Counterspells, "if I am targeted by any sort of Dispelling Effect, counter it with a Greater Dispel Magic like a Ring of Counterspells"?

 

[Starbuck_II]

Because contingency and counterspelling work under a different set of rules, as anyone would see after doing a bit of reading.

Counterspelling relies on the wizard taking a readied action. Contingency does not grant an automatic readied action. Others have suggested that it does, but the fact is that contingency does not grant an automatic readied action. If it did, such would be made clear in the spell's description.

Now, the wizard can certainly set his contingency to fire with a power word, and THEN take a readied action, firing the contingency whenever appropriate, but the contingency itself does not give a readied action. The wizard would have to set a power word trigger that he can activate consciously, either as a readied action, an immediate action, or a standard action, but if the trigger is stated as “If X happens, then my contingency fires,” that X cannot be “A person casting a spell,” because contingency cannot interrupt a casting all by itself. It’s the wizard who must interrupt the casting with either a readied action counterspell, a ring of counterspells, or an immediate action power word trigger contingency.

The ring of counterspells, the ring of spell battle, and a variety of other items work under their own set of rules, and those rules have nothing to do with contingency.

To say that contingency acts like a ring of counterspells is a house rule at best.

So you are saying Mid level magic items like the Ring are stronger than high level magic like Contingency.

 

[Crust]

You base it solely on your opinions and interpretations and call it fact.

You can't be serious. Since it's clear you haven't even bothered to read my posts, let me bring you up to speed on how my interpretation is NOT based solely on my opinion. My interpretation is based on the information found in the following texts:

-PHBs from 2003 dating back to 1989 (the contingency spell description hasn't changed in 20 years in terms of trigger expectations)
-The Ravenloft boxed set (Azalin's trigger)
-The Heroes' Lorebook (Elminster's evasion triggers)
-The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (updated Elminster's evasion)
-Complete Arcane (further clarification on how contingency works, and this source really solidifies my view)
-The Spell Compendium (contingent energy resistance)
-The Epic Level Handbook (contingent resurrection)

Clearly, some people need to revise their understanding of my interpretation and how I reached it... or at least read posts before responding.

And Theroc, it might seem like I'm dismissing opinions out of hand, but that's not actually what is happening. It should be clear to anyone who has paid attention to this conversation that in EVERY INSTANCE of my disagreement, I provide clear, valid reasons based on published material why this or that opinion doesn't make sense. My last post to Newjeffct should be clear evidence of that.

And still, no one has presented evidence to counter my interpretation (an interpretation based on evidence not opinion, don't forget). Recent posts amount to, "You're wrong, Crust! I don't know why, but you're wrong!" That's brilliant, people.