Thwarting Mord's Disjunction with Contingency

[Thanee]

As an example, maybe look up the Contingent Energy Resistance spell in Spell Compendium.

It also interrupts the damage dealing and protects you against the damage you get dealt. Otherwise it would be pretty pointless.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Crust]

Widow, there is a time the wizard can intercede, interrupting a rival wizard's casting, but the contingency all by itself cannot intercede unless the wizard uses an immediate action to activate his contingency.

And like I've already established, the contingency is aware, but it’s only aware of the condition of the wizard that the contingency is cast upon. The spell is completely unaware of all stimuli that exist beyond the wizard's body. All published sources back up this idea.

Thanee, contingent energy resistance "functions similarly to contingency," but the is still its own spell with its own set of parameters. The language says, "if you are dealt damage... the spell automatically grants you resistance 10." If the description said, "if you take damage, the spell then grants resistance," then that would be different. In the case of contingent energy resistance, the contingency acts before damage is suffered, but it still doesn't react before the wizard begins casting or the dragon inhales for a breath attack. This doesn't change my interpretation.

Herzog, you are the man. Nice job with Complete Arcane. There are five paragraphs detailing contingent spells on page 139. This is exactly what I'm looking for. Let me quote the text further:

Triggers for contingent spells are usually events that happen to the bearer of the spell, and can include death, contracting disease, exposure to a breath weapon or to energy damage, falling, exposure to a breath weapon or to a dangerous environment (trapped by fire, plunged underwater, and so forth), succumbing to sleep or fear effects, gaining negative levels, or being rendered helpless, deafened, or blind.

The “usually” in the first sentence is exactly the kind of thing a player would pounce on in an attempt to manipulate the spell beyond reasonable bounds, and it should be clear to that player that the DM will second guess such a generous interpretation of “usually.” “Usually” does not equate to “any other trigger the player can imagine.” That should be obvious to everyone, really. The usual triggers are above, but the wizard can also set up a power word or wiggle of the nose to activate his/her contingency. It’s either that or the trigger examples above, each of which require the wizard to suffer the effect first, gaining the benefits of contingency second.

Clearly, all of the above examples involve the wizard being manipulated. None of these triggers even hints at the possibility of a contingency firing when someone begins casting a spell 20 feet away. Yet another source that backs up my interpretation and squashes the idea that the contingency is aware of things beyond the wizard the contingency is riding.

Two paragraphs down, the following can be found on page 139 of Complete Arcane:

If the bearer of a contingent spell is the target of a dispel magic, the contingent spell might be permanently dispelled (but not triggered), as if it were an active spell in effect on the target creature.

This assumes the wizard is hit with the dispel, whether from the area effect or the target effect. The above paragraph does not state, in any language whatsoever (it's not even hinted at), that the contingency interrupts the dispel magic and fires first, so there is absolutely zero reason to assume that it does unless you're a player who really, really, really wants contingency to work that way.

This also confirms that disjunction will destroy a contingency before whatever spell the contingency carries is released.

After 20 years, going from the 1989 PHB right up to the 2004 Complete Arcane, considering all novels and rulebooks that have dealt with contingency (Elminster's evasion, Azalin's contingency, various Greenwood novels where the wizard always dies before his contingencies fire uselessly), never once in any published source has contingency been described as being able to spontaneously fire when someone starts casting a spell some distance away.

Case closed. See you at the table. Set your contingency with a power word.

 

[Herzog]

The “usually” in the first sentence is exactly the kind of thing a player would pounce on in an attempt to manipulate the spell beyond reasonable bounds, and it should be clear to that player that the DM will second guess such a generous interpretation of “usually.” “Usually” does not equate to “any other trigger the player can imagine.” That should be obvious to everyone, really.

No it isn't.

You have requested additional rules or quotes which might lead you to re-evaluate your position on what is and what isn't a reasonable contingency.
You are provided by one (and yes, I am very much aware of the fact it is not one without room for further interpretation) and you instantly dismiss it by stating it should be ovious to everyone that it does not, in fact, mean “any other trigger the player can imagine”, even when (again) no proof either for or against that is presented.

Also, you keep bringing up material of older versions. Material of older versions is irrelevant. How would you react if I brought in a reference from a novel? A rule from 4th edition? or GURPS? I assume you would dismiss those as well, and rightly so. Older editions, in regards to RAW, have no factual impact on the discussion.

We can agree on one thingh though: this discussion is over.
You have shown on more than one occasion you can not actually be convinced an other interpretation of the rule than the one you present can be true unless presented with rock-hard evidence (which doesn't exist as far as we can determine).
Discussion, therefore, is useless.

Happy gaming

 

[Crust]

Previous editions are valid concerning the constant and never-changing expectations on contingency triggers. I established that several posts ago. And even so, I’ve provided 3E examples from the PHB and Complete Arcane, so what does it matter that I’ve drawn upon older editions? I didn’t have to, and there’s no reason to even mention that I have. Focus on the 3E examples if 2E turns your stomach.

Just because contingent energy resistance doesn't change my mind doesn't mean I've dismissed it. I explained that the spell has its own function that is separate from the 6th level contingency. That's a fact. The words speak for themselves. The spell functions "similarly" to contingency not "exactly" like contingency. We should all understand the difference between "similarly" and "exactly." Contingent energy resistance does not stop the spell from being cast or the breath weapon from being unleashed, and no contingency spell would be able to do so.

Rock-hard evidence exists that backs up my interpretation, and though some of it is 2E evidence, some of it is also 3E evidence. It shouldn't be unreasonable that if my mind is to change, only rock-hard evidence will change it. If that evidence doesn't exist, then yes, this conversation is over.

 

[FEADIN]

As the contingency can set up a stoneskin to reduce a blow, it can stop (unless 1%/level disrupt) the Mordenkainen disjunction.
Nothing in the writing says otherwise, the blow has to connect and with your exemples you would rule that once it connects it's too late like you seems to tell for the MD.
Who came first between the egg and the chicken ?

 

[Elethiomel]

Rock-hard evidence exists that backs up my interpretation, and though some of it is 2E evidence, some of it is also 3E evidence. It shouldn't be unreasonable that if my mind is to change, only rock-hard evidence will change it. If that evidence doesn't exist, then yes, this conversation is over.

You have not shown any rock-hard evidence backing up your interpretation. You have only shown examples that do not cover the interpretation in question.

 

[Herzog]

Rock-hard evidence does not exist to support your interpretation.

Let me elaborate:
1. There is evidence that disjunction can be triggered by something affecting the wizard.
2. There is no evidence that disjunction can be triggered by something not affecting the wizard.

Lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary.

The inability to come up with a black swan is not evidence all swans are white. It is simply evidence that all examples of swans brought forward until now are white, and the existence of black swan remains a possibility, to be proven once a black swan has been located and presented.

The introduction of my quote from the Complete Arcane was to show you that there is evidence of the possibility of proverbial black swans.

If you won't even acknowledge that, what's there to discuss?

 

[Abciximab]

If the bearer of a contingent spell is the target of a dispel magic, the contingent spell might be permanently dispelled (but not triggered), as if it were an active spell in effect on the target creature.

Just to be clear, this statement doesn't say "If the contingency is set to go off when Dispel Magic is cast upon the bearer, the contingency will not go off", it just says that if you have an active contingency and are hit with Dispel Magic the contingency needs to be checked like any other spell that is active on the recipient.

I think Contingency is a poorly worded spell and open to DM interpretation.

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

As DM I would accept this as a simple, clear condition for a spell casters one and only Contingency. But if a DM I was playing with ruled otherwise (and let me know ahead of time) I would accept his ruling.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Again, as I said earlier, an immediate action would interrupt the Disjunction and allow the invocation of the Contingency.

For example, a level 7 psion with 19 hit points can manifest level 4 powers, including Intellect Fortress. Psion gets hit by a 9d6 fireball for 36 points of damage. Psion fails save and is dead, as it is an instantaneous effect - but, she instead manifests Intellect Fortress as an Immediate Action and the 36 points of damage is halved to 18, so the psion is still alive and at 1 hit point. So, the Intellect Fortress is stopping the instantaneous duration fireball from killing the psion because it is an immediate action. Contingency is just a more powerful version of an immediate action, as it is always on.

And, I used intellect fortress and psionics, as it is the only area in the SRD that has Immediate Actions in it - SRD - Powers G to P

 

[widow]

The “usually” in the first sentence is exactly the kind of thing a player would pounce on in an attempt to manipulate the spell beyond reasonable bounds, and it should be clear to that player that the DM will second guess such a generous interpretation of “usually.” “Usually” does not equate to “any other trigger the player can imagine.” That should be obvious to everyone, really. The usual triggers are above, but the wizard can also set up a power word or wiggle of the nose to activate his/her contingency. It’s either that or the trigger examples above, each of which require the wizard to suffer the effect first, gaining the benefits of contingency second.

If usually is changed to only and contingency spell works exactly as craft contingency (which is from a later suppliment than the core spell), then yes, you have to wait until everything has already happened for it to go off. Then there is no more need for discussion, all my points were based on my list of assumptions. And a list of assumptions are needed since the rules are ambiguous. Your list is different than mine.

Maybe I look at things too logically. I like to make a frame work of rules (which are set once found), followed by a list of assumptions (which is the part open to interrupation). If we are both arguing a point with a non-agreed upon list of assumptions, then there is no reason to continue. Individual assumptions must be established first in cases of ambiguity. And assumptions, no matter how logically or illogically, must never be presented as facts.

Using your assumption, I completely agree with you. It leaves all other considerations moot.

The player crack is funny though. "Changing the word "usually" to mean "only" is exactly the kind of abuse a DM would institute." Ha, I am so witty! Looks like a logical fallacy of " Argumentum ad hominem" to me. I would also like to point out logical fallacies of "Argumentum ad antiquitatem" and "Argumentum ad logicam" that run through the arguments presented in different individuals' posts. While I myself am quickly closing in on "Argumentum ad nauseam."