Thwarting Mord's Disjunction with Contingency

[Abciximab]

Trust me, we've all read your posts.

 

[Crust]

Your previous post proves otherwise, but thanks for the flames.

And with that subtle show of disrespect flung at me, I depart. What a shame that after asking for, what, 6 or 7 times for evidence that counters my evidence-based interpretation, all I'm getting now is "You're wrong, Crust!" I thought things would be different here. Food for thought.

Good gaming, everyone. Watch out for disjunction.

 

[Theroc]

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.

I have been following this thread. I can't believe you guys are still arguing about it, since it's clear this is a point where everyone should agree to disagree and go home. I've read your points, and I don't believe previous editions support your point. I also do not believe that not showing an example excludes the possibility.

I have paid attention to this conversation, and it is not clear to me that your reasoning is valid.

 

[Umbran]

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

You can't be serious. Since it's clear you haven't even bothered to read my posts...

I strongly urge everyone here to review the special notes on civility for Rules forums stickied at the top of the forum page.

Specifically, the "...that's a house rule," and, "...you haven't read...," forms are things you should avoid. Declaring another person's interpretation to be a house rule is dismissive and condescending - it isn't as if *you* have the authority to make such declarations, any more than the other guy does. And maybe they did read, and they just disagree with you - don't ever assume your point is so clear and unassailable that it cannot be questions except in either stupidity of ignorance.

Really, folks, if you're butting heads that badly, just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[carmachu]

Hells no. Take another look at my post. I used this example:

*shakes head*

Instead of arguing with the board, why dont you just tell your player he cant do it.

Because reading through all the posts, thats the conculsion you WANT. Its clear in your arguement that you arent leaving any room for anything else, despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[SolitonMan]

It might be moot at this point but I found this on the Wizards community site:

relevant thread

Check out post 14855, the response to question 6927:


Q: "Anyway to guard against a Disjunction? I understand items get a will save against it, so is there any way to boost an item's will save in case of such a danger?"

A: "You could contingency Antimagic Field for that purpose, but they still have a chance to get you.

Easier, Disjunction is a Burst and...
"A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst’s area defines how far from the point of origin the spell’s effect extends. "

So it would be better to contingency something like Wall of Stone that would grant total cover, with a trigger on, 'if someone casts Disjunction within 40ft'.

(contingency, for reference, is able to interrupt other's actions)"


I don't know who the poster, Pithica, is, or what official status (if any) their answers have, but it's food for thought.

 

[NewJeffCT]

It might be moot at this point but I found this on the Wizards community site:

relevant thread

Check out post 14855, the response to question 6927:


Q: "Anyway to guard against a Disjunction? I understand items get a will save against it, so is there any way to boost an item's will save in case of such a danger?"

A: "You could contingency Antimagic Field for that purpose, but they still have a chance to get you.

Easier, Disjunction is a Burst and...
"A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst’s area defines how far from the point of origin the spell’s effect extends. "

So it would be better to contingency something like Wall of Stone that would grant total cover, with a trigger on, 'if someone casts Disjunction within 40ft'.

(contingency, for reference, is able to interrupt other's actions)"


I don't know who the poster, Pithica, is, or what official status (if any) their answers have, but it's food for thought.

Thanks for the info - that was helpful. Is the section that starts "Easier, Disjunction is a burst and..." part of the same answer, or is that another section?

 

[SolitonMan]

Thanks for the info - that was helpful. Is the section that starts "Easier, Disjunction is a burst and..." part of the same answer, or is that another section?

It's all part of the same answer, sorry for the embedded double quoting, I didn't notice it until after I posted. I thought the comment about contingency being able to interrupt actions was particularly relevant to the timing of the disjunction as discussed earlier in this thread.

 

[NewJeffCT]

It's all part of the same answer, sorry for the embedded double quoting, I didn't notice it until after I posted. I thought the comment about contingency being able to interrupt actions was particularly relevant to the timing of the disjunction as discussed earlier in this thread.

well, thanks again. wish I could give you XP twice, but you'll have to settle for once.

 

[Vegepygmy]

So it would be better to contingency something like Wall of Stone that would grant total cover, with a trigger on, 'if someone casts Disjunction within 40ft'.

I get the general point of the suggestion (that blocking line of effect may be a better solution than throwing up an antimagic field), but the devil is in the details. A wall of stone "must merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone," for example. So if you're aboard a ship at sea, with no stone for miles around, when your enemy tries to disjoin you...too bad, so sad! The antimagic field could have still saved you, though.

Just something to think about.