3.5 Contingency two spellcasters ? [Archive] - Wizards Community

3.5 Contingency two spellcasters ? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Ghybhay
10-29-04, 08:14 PM Hi,
One of my player just asked me one question you might find a little silly.
I must say that I use the french translation of the PHB v3.5.

Could the companion spell of the contingency spell be casted by another spelcaster ?
For example : can a wizard set a contingency spell with a cure spell casted py a cleric ?
The SRD says "The contingency spell and the companion spell are cast at the same time." and "The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person and be of a spell level no higherthan one-third your caster level (rounded down, maximum 6th level)." It never says that the spellcaster must be the same for the two spell (or I might be blind or my english is so poor that I didn't understand anything ;) )
What do you think of this ?
Would you allow a wizard create a contingency with a cure spell casted by a cleric ?
kSquared
10-29-04, 08:37 PM You're right, it doesn't say this. I can't think of a good rules-based reason to disallow it, either, though I'm sure there are plenty of game-breaking contingency-heal/cleric combos that wizards would love to get their hands on (trigger: "when I'm at 25% or less of my maximum hit points").
Seeker95
10-29-04, 10:52 PM I see no problem.
It is no different than permanency.
Ghybhay
10-30-04, 04:18 PM I see no problem.
It is no different than permanency.
IMO, I think allowing this can break somme balance of the game, making wizard use cleric spells.

So what would you do ? Allow contigency/cure spells or not ?
Seeker95
10-30-04, 04:32 PM IMO, I think allowing this can break some balance of the game, making wizard use cleric spells.They're not using cleric spells. They're paying a claeric to cast a spell for them, or talking their party member into doing it for them. Do you rule that a wizard cannot make a cleric spell permanent?

If they can load permanency with a cleric spell, they can load contingency with a cleric spell. There's no balance issue at all.
Heron_Marked_Blade
10-30-04, 04:33 PM What's your reasoning for NOT letting something like this be possible? The contingency-Heal combination is NOT broken, nor is it "cheating". That's why Heal is a Range: Touch spell -- so clerics can cast it on other people. This combination takes a 6th-level cleric spell and a 6th-level wizard spell to work, which means you need an 11th-level cleric and 18th-level wizard (since the spell contained in the contingency can't be more than 1/3 your level, i.e. the caster of the contingency spell), or a Cleric 3/Wizard 7/Mystic Theurge 10 with an orange ioun stone (to get that CL 18 for arcane spells). And if you're the Mystic Theurge, the ability to blend arcane/divine magic is precisely why you have lost all of that power compared to the Wizard 5/Incantatrix 10/Archmage 5. If this is the extent of the "brokenness" you experience at these levels, consider yourself lucky.

Verdict: Not Broken. Completely allowable according to the RAW, and the Spirit of the Rules, and therefore allowed in my campaign.
kSquared
10-30-04, 04:41 PM Can you supply the spell you want to place in a contingency from a wand, scroll, staff, or wondrous item?
Heron_Marked_Blade
10-30-04, 05:42 PM Can you supply the spell you want to place in a contingency from a wand, scroll, staff, or wondrous item?
Yes, just as you can supply a spell during item creation from a scroll, staff, wand, or wondrous item.
Ghybhay
10-30-04, 06:52 PM They're not using cleric spells. They're paying a claeric to cast a spell for them, or talking their party member into doing it for them. Do you rule that a wizard cannot make a cleric spell permanent?

If they can load permanency with a cleric spell, they can load contingency with a cleric spell. There's no balance issue at all.

No I don't rule that a wizard can't make cleric spell permanent for the spell list given in the PHB. For spells not in the list, that depends on which spell a priest wants to make permanent. I think an excessively pious high level wizard could eventually cast a permanency on a flame strike spell, if asked by the hierophant of his faith for the greatness of his god for example. For a NPC, there's no problem as long as that's coherent with the background of the campaign you're playing (and as the DM I just do what I think to be coherent with the world). For a PC, I will think twice before letting him doing the same if there's no good roleplaying reason, and the cost in XP will be very extensive in the case.

For the contingency spell, I just want to be sure there's no hidden rule that doesn't allow the companion spell to be cast by a second spell caster or with a scroll, wand, rod...
A player asked me that question during game, and I answered no with the risk of unbalancing the game.
Reading your post and the permanency spell description has convinced me to let him doing the contingency/cure combo as long as the wizard proves the cleric (and his god too, after all) that he's pious and follows the cleric's god ethic.
I won't let a wizard just pay a cleric for spellcasting if he's opposed to the dogma of the god.
Seeker95
10-30-04, 08:11 PM I think an excessively pious high level wizard could eventually cast a permanency on a flame strike spell, if asked by the hierophant of his faith for the greatness of his god for example.No he can't. Flame strike is an instantaneous spell.
Can't make it permanent any more than he could make fireball permanent.
kSquared
10-30-04, 08:13 PM Curse Seeker for beating me to it. ;)
Seeker95
10-30-04, 08:13 PM For the contingency spell, I just want to be sure there's no hidden rule that doesn't allow the companion spell to be cast by a second spell caster or with a scroll, wand, rod... There is no hidden rule. There is no unhidden rule.
However, your DM (you?) may make a house rule prohibiting such action.
RaspK FOG
10-30-04, 10:52 PM Seems you missed the obvious: "You can place...", etc. First sentence; enough said.
Nom
10-31-04, 06:38 AM The other issue is casting time. The casting time of contingency includes both the contingency spell and the contingent spell, which necessarily implies that "you" cast both spells.

It is a possible that the contingent spell can be cast from a scroll. However, my reading of contingency is that contingency and the contingent spell become one combined spell, and thus both spells must be inherently castable by the caster.

Permanency is quite different, in that the affected spell precedes the permanency spell. It also says that "you cast" both spells.
Seeker95
10-31-04, 09:53 AM Permanency uses about the same kind of language as contingency: "You cast".

If you want the more restrictive interpretation, this would imply that a wizard cannot use permancency on any spell he does not have prepared. He cannot work in conjunction with any other caster.

This is incongruent with the RAW, since permanency (a Sor/Wiz spell only) can be used on magic fang (a Drd/Rgr spell only). Since we know that permancency can be used on non-wizard spells, we know that the "you cast" is not restrictive to the wizard casting the spell.

Contingency has even less restrictive language. It has the less specific wording of "You can place another spell upon your person [...]"

I'm not arguing against the restrictive interpretation. Rather, I am arguing against treating the restrictive interpretation as if it were fact. Whether you allow the contingent spell to come from another or not is an interperation and a house rule. The RAW is unclear on this matter. That makes any decision a DM-campaign-specific ruling.
Ghybhay
10-31-04, 06:50 PM No he can't. Flame strike is an instantaneous spell.
Can't make it permanent any more than he could make fireball permanent.
Flame strike was an example of a well known cleric spell. it was just to illustrate the matter, not to demonstrate a real fact or game situation. Let's say I wrote bless in the place of flame strike :)
Ghybhay
10-31-04, 07:01 PM This is incongruent with the RAW, since permanency (a Sor/Wiz spell only) can be used on magic fang (a Drd/Rgr spell only). Since we know that permancency can be used on non-wizard spells, we know that the "you cast" is not restrictive to the wizard casting the spell.

Contingency has even less restrictive language. It has the less specific wording of "You can place another spell upon your person [...]"

I'm not arguing against the restrictive interpretation. Rather, I am arguing against treating the restrictive interpretation as if it were fact. Whether you allow the contingent spell to come from another or not is an interperation and a house rule. The RAW is unclear on this matter. That makes any decision a DM-campaign-specific ruling.

if you have a neutral Wiz10/Rgr10 (quite a strange PC isn't it?), he can cast both permanency and magic fang without a second spellcaster ... :)

Since the rules about contingency is subject to interpretation, what do you do in your campaign ? (I think Seeker95 uses contingency/cure combos in his campaign :) )
kSquared
10-31-04, 07:23 PM if you have a neutral Wiz10/Rgr10 (quite a strange PC isn't it?), he can cast both permanency and magic fang without a second spellcaster ... That's twenty levels to get +1 to a natural weapon, and it costs you 500 xp, which is the same XP cost you'd pay to make an item worth 12,500 gp. In other words, you're telling us you'd rather have a +1 natural weapon rather than a +2 manufactured weapon and a 4,500 gp magic item.

I say let the player do it if he wants to. :P
RaistlinBN
11-01-04, 02:19 AM I concur with the ruling that contingency may be cast on a spell not of the wizard/sorcerer description. The language is certainly open enough to allow almost any pairing of spells, regardless of origin, so long as they meet the restrictions provided within the text of this spell. For this reason, it seems to me that spellcasters MAY work in tandem with each other, assuming that all prereqs are met.

I would also allow the spell to be cast from a wand, scroll, or staff because all effects from aforementioned magical items function IDENTICALLY to those cast directly by a wizard/sorc. I'm with Seeker, Heron and KSquared on this one...unless evidence can be provided to the contrary.

Raist
Baba Yaga
11-01-04, 06:06 AM If you're playing FR, there is an 8th level spell called Alamanthor's Return which allows an arcane caster to duplicate any spell he's seen cast (8th level or under), including divine spells, by paying a 1000xp point penalty and any other XP point penalty the duplicated spell may have. Regular contingency can't create this effect, but the Craft Contingent Spell Feat allows any spell to be made contingent. It may be broken it may not be but it will allow a wizard or sorcerer to have a heal kick off.
Heron_Marked_Blade
11-01-04, 10:19 AM If you're playing FR, there is an 8th level spell called Alamanthor's Return <snip>I think it's actually a 9th-level spell...not that it makes any difference, since you're correct about the Craft Contingent Spell feat.

Craft Contingent Spell (Unapproachable East) would allow a 150-hp heal spell to be placed on a creature for [SL 6 x CL 15 x 100gp / 2] 4,500gp + 360xp.

I don't think allowing Contingency to replicate this feat is broken. Why? Four reasons:
(1) Contingency is limited to Personal range, while the feat allows you to place spells on any creature.
(2) Spells placed through Contingency have a 1 day/CL duration, versus the "permanent until activated" duration of the Craft Contingent Spell feat.
(2) Spells placed through the Contingency spell are limited to 1/3 CL, versus no such limitation for the Craft Contingent Spell feat.
(4) Only one Contingency spell can be active at a time, versus the "one contingent spell per hit dice" limitation of the feat.
tarkin
11-01-04, 11:44 AM I am so dissapointed in you guys. Especially Seeker95. He is usually so thorough. Did you not read his intro? He specifically said English was not his first language. You can't just trust them to quote the relevant part, you have to read the spell description, ESPECIALLY when the poster admits he can't read english well.

Sorry, but according to the SRD, you are not allowed to have someone else cast the spell

You can place another spell upon your person so that it comes into effect under some condition you dictate when casting contingency. The contingency spell and the companion spell are cast at the same time. The 10-minute casting time is the minimum total for both castings; if the companion spell has a casting time longer than 10 minutes, use that instead.

The words "You can place" mean you and ONLY you can cast the spell.

The 6th level spell Contingency does not allow a 2nd person to cast the spell, you must be the person casting the spell. Yes there are other, higher level spells and feats that let you get around this limitation of Contingency.

This was also mentioned in pacing by the Sage when he discussed the spell contingency in a Dragon Magazine Article.
kSquared
11-01-04, 12:03 PM This was also mentioned in pacing by the Sage when he discussed the spell contingency in a Dragon Magazine Article.Assuming that's right, that settles it then. But what about casting it from a spell completion item or spell trigger item? Are "you" casting the spell then?

btw, disappointed has one s, two p's. ;)
Seeker95
11-01-04, 12:09 PM I am so dissapointed in you guys. Especially Seeker95. He is usually so thorough. Did you not read his intro? The words "You can place" mean you and ONLY you can cast the spell.tarkin, I am disappointed in you for jumping the gun.
Did you not read the entire thread?

We already covered this. And left it to interpretation based on almost identical language in permancency (where spells listed in the approved RAW list are not even on the wizard list).

There is no RAW answer to the question. There is language that can lead to multiple conclusions and interpertations. This is an area of ambiguity in the rules. Clarifying ambiguity is one of the roles of the DM. Whichever way you interpret is inherently a house rule.

And, as has already been said, it is up to the DM.
One DM may see it clear as day that the wizard casting contingency must also cast the contingent spell. Another DM may see it clear as day that there is no restriction. Yet another DM may see that this is a muddy area in the rules, and simply rule according to his or her own opinion on the matter.

I fall in that third group.
And in so doing, I allow it.

(Besides, how can a wizard cast two spells at the same time?
This is one of the requirements of the spell!) :P
tarkin
11-01-04, 12:57 PM Re time: The spell specifically states that you can do it, that the 10 minute casting time includes the casting of the other spell.

As for Permancy, it specifies which spells you may make permanent on other creatures, negating the problem for them.
Seeker95
11-01-04, 03:13 PM I'm not questioning whether you are convinced of the accuracy of your ruling, tarkin. It is a perfectly valid ruling. But it is just that -- your ruling. Derived from an interpretation of other statements, rather than a direct in-the-rules statement. Through your interpretation of other statements, you have come to a conclusion on this question.

That is what we call a house rule.

For the record, my conclusion is also a house rule.
And an equally valid one.
Nom
11-01-04, 04:30 PM As for Permancy, it specifies which spells you may make permanent on other creatures, negating the problem for them.Even permanency says "you cast the desired spell and then follow it with the permanency spell". Technically, this is for making spells permanent on yourself, but the only specific changes when dealing with non-personal targets are that they're non-personal and do not have special protection against dispel magic.

Still not clear whether "you cast" includes scrolls and/or other items.
Ghybhay
11-01-04, 05:23 PM I am so dissapointed in you guys. Especially Seeker95. He is usually so thorough. Did you not read his intro? He specifically said English was not his first language. You can't just trust them to quote the relevant part, you have to read the spell description, ESPECIALLY when the poster admits he can't read english well.

Thanks Tarkin for defending me. I think I understand literary english but it is the slang which poses more problems to me. But don't worry tarkin, I'll try to improve me in english( (high school for me, it was 8 years ago, and in my job, I never use english, so I do my best :) or what I can ;)

So
I'm in fact a french DM and sometimes translation of the PHB in french can be different from the exact meaning in english in the SRD.

I've asked the same question on french boards and I think the whole problem is the french translation of the spell.
On french board, DMs said there's a big mistake of meaning in the two first sentences of the spell description .
The spell description in french doesn't begin with "You can place another spell upon your person ...[SRD]". But it begins with "Ce sort permet d�en lancer un autre...[french PHB]" which means "This spell allows the casting of a second one...".
And the second sentence is more confusing in french. It's not "The contingency spell and the companion spell are cast at the same time [SRD]". but instead it's "Les deux sorts sont jet�s � la suite l�un de l�autre. [french PHB]". This means in english : "The two spell are casted one after the other."
The rest of the description has quite the same meaning in french and in english. So in the french version of the spell description they never speak of "YOU can.." and of the "cast at the same time" part.

To conclude, let's say my question came from a bad translation problem.

On the french boards, they think no one can create a contingency spell with a second spellcaster providing the companion spell. They refer to the SRD in english to explain the problem of meaning.
Heron_Marked_Blade
11-01-04, 07:01 PM Once we recognize the problem of semantics, the next question we have to address is "Does it become a problem (make things imbalanced or plain broken) to allow a second spellcaster to cast the second, contingencied spell?"

I personally do not think this creates a problem. Yes, it might allow you to have spells from other magical disciplines placed on you. Yes, there are some pretty useful spells in other magical disciplines. However, there are numerous ways an intelligent DM can limit such situations. I won't list them here, I'll just leave it at this: Don't fall into the mindset that PCs deserve everything they want.

I personally allow spellcasters to work together with Contingency and Permanency.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ghybhay 10-29-04, 08:14 PM	Hi, One of my player just asked me one question you might find a little silly. I must say that I use the french translation of the PHB v3.5. Could the companion spell of the contingency spell be casted by another spelcaster ? For example : can a wizard set a contingency spell with a cure spell casted py a cleric ? The SRD says "The contingency spell and the companion spell are cast at the same time." and "The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person and be of a spell level no higherthan one-third your caster level (rounded down, maximum 6th level)." It never says that the spellcaster must be the same for the two spell (or I might be blind or my english is so poor that I didn't understand anything ;) ) What do you think of this ? Would you allow a wizard create a contingency with a cure spell casted by a cleric ?
kSquared 10-29-04, 08:37 PM	You're right, it doesn't say this. I can't think of a good rules-based reason to disallow it, either, though I'm sure there are plenty of game-breaking contingency-heal/cleric combos that wizards would love to get their hands on (trigger: "when I'm at 25% or less of my maximum hit points").
Seeker95 10-29-04, 10:52 PM	I see no problem. It is no different than permanency.
Ghybhay 10-30-04, 04:18 PM	I see no problem. It is no different than permanency. IMO, I think allowing this can break somme balance of the game, making wizard use cleric spells. So what would you do ? Allow contigency/cure spells or not ?
Seeker95 10-30-04, 04:32 PM	IMO, I think allowing this can break some balance of the game, making wizard use cleric spells.They're not using cleric spells. They're paying a claeric to cast a spell for them, or talking their party member into doing it for them. Do you rule that a wizard cannot make a cleric spell permanent? If they can load permanency with a cleric spell, they can load contingency with a cleric spell. There's no balance issue at all.
Heron_Marked_Blade 10-30-04, 04:33 PM	What's your reasoning for NOT letting something like this be possible? The contingency-Heal combination is NOT broken, nor is it "cheating". That's why Heal is a Range: Touch spell -- so clerics can cast it on other people. This combination takes a 6th-level cleric spell and a 6th-level wizard spell to work, which means you need an 11th-level cleric and 18th-level wizard (since the spell contained in the contingency can't be more than 1/3 your level, i.e. the caster of the contingency spell), or a Cleric 3/Wizard 7/Mystic Theurge 10 with an orange ioun stone (to get that CL 18 for arcane spells). And if you're the Mystic Theurge, the ability to blend arcane/divine magic is precisely why you have lost all of that power compared to the Wizard 5/Incantatrix 10/Archmage 5. If this is the extent of the "brokenness" you experience at these levels, consider yourself lucky. Verdict: Not Broken. Completely allowable according to the RAW, and the Spirit of the Rules, and therefore allowed in my campaign.
kSquared 10-30-04, 04:41 PM	Can you supply the spell you want to place in a contingency from a wand, scroll, staff, or wondrous item?
Heron_Marked_Blade 10-30-04, 05:42 PM	Can you supply the spell you want to place in a contingency from a wand, scroll, staff, or wondrous item? Yes, just as you can supply a spell during item creation from a scroll, staff, wand, or wondrous item.
Ghybhay 10-30-04, 06:52 PM	They're not using cleric spells. They're paying a claeric to cast a spell for them, or talking their party member into doing it for them. Do you rule that a wizard cannot make a cleric spell permanent? If they can load permanency with a cleric spell, they can load contingency with a cleric spell. There's no balance issue at all. No I don't rule that a wizard can't make cleric spell permanent for the spell list given in the PHB. For spells not in the list, that depends on which spell a priest wants to make permanent. I think an excessively pious high level wizard could eventually cast a permanency on a flame strike spell, if asked by the hierophant of his faith for the greatness of his god for example. For a NPC, there's no problem as long as that's coherent with the background of the campaign you're playing (and as the DM I just do what I think to be coherent with the world). For a PC, I will think twice before letting him doing the same if there's no good roleplaying reason, and the cost in XP will be very extensive in the case. For the contingency spell, I just want to be sure there's no hidden rule that doesn't allow the companion spell to be cast by a second spell caster or with a scroll, wand, rod... A player asked me that question during game, and I answered no with the risk of unbalancing the game. Reading your post and the permanency spell description has convinced me to let him doing the contingency/cure combo as long as the wizard proves the cleric (and his god too, after all) that he's pious and follows the cleric's god ethic. I won't let a wizard just pay a cleric for spellcasting if he's opposed to the dogma of the god.
Seeker95 10-30-04, 08:11 PM	I think an excessively pious high level wizard could eventually cast a permanency on a flame strike spell, if asked by the hierophant of his faith for the greatness of his god for example.No he can't. Flame strike is an instantaneous spell. Can't make it permanent any more than he could make fireball permanent.
kSquared 10-30-04, 08:13 PM	Curse Seeker for beating me to it. ;)
Seeker95 10-30-04, 08:13 PM	For the contingency spell, I just want to be sure there's no hidden rule that doesn't allow the companion spell to be cast by a second spell caster or with a scroll, wand, rod... There is no hidden rule. There is no unhidden rule. However, your DM (you?) may make a house rule prohibiting such action.
RaspK FOG 10-30-04, 10:52 PM	Seems you missed the obvious: "You can place...", etc. First sentence; enough said.
Nom 10-31-04, 06:38 AM	The other issue is casting time. The casting time of contingency includes both the contingency spell and the contingent spell, which necessarily implies that "you" cast both spells. It is a possible that the contingent spell can be cast from a scroll. However, my reading of contingency is that contingency and the contingent spell become one combined spell, and thus both spells must be inherently castable by the caster. Permanency is quite different, in that the affected spell precedes the permanency spell. It also says that "you cast" both spells.
Seeker95 10-31-04, 09:53 AM	Permanency uses about the same kind of language as contingency: "You cast". If you want the more restrictive interpretation, this would imply that a wizard cannot use permancency on any spell he does not have prepared. He cannot work in conjunction with any other caster. This is incongruent with the RAW, since permanency (a Sor/Wiz spell only) can be used on magic fang (a Drd/Rgr spell only). Since we know that permancency can be used on non-wizard spells, we know that the "you cast" is not restrictive to the wizard casting the spell. Contingency has even less restrictive language. It has the less specific wording of "You can place another spell upon your person [...]" I'm not arguing against the restrictive interpretation. Rather, I am arguing against treating the restrictive interpretation as if it were fact. Whether you allow the contingent spell to come from another or not is an interperation and a house rule. The RAW is unclear on this matter. That makes any decision a DM-campaign-specific ruling.
Ghybhay 10-31-04, 06:50 PM	No he can't. Flame strike is an instantaneous spell. Can't make it permanent any more than he could make fireball permanent. Flame strike was an example of a well known cleric spell. it was just to illustrate the matter, not to demonstrate a real fact or game situation. Let's say I wrote bless in the place of flame strike :)
Ghybhay 10-31-04, 07:01 PM	This is incongruent with the RAW, since permanency (a Sor/Wiz spell only) can be used on magic fang (a Drd/Rgr spell only). Since we know that permancency can be used on non-wizard spells, we know that the "you cast" is not restrictive to the wizard casting the spell. Contingency has even less restrictive language. It has the less specific wording of "You can place another spell upon your person [...]" I'm not arguing against the restrictive interpretation. Rather, I am arguing against treating the restrictive interpretation as if it were fact. Whether you allow the contingent spell to come from another or not is an interperation and a house rule. The RAW is unclear on this matter. That makes any decision a DM-campaign-specific ruling. if you have a neutral Wiz10/Rgr10 (quite a strange PC isn't it?), he can cast both permanency and magic fang without a second spellcaster ... :) Since the rules about contingency is subject to interpretation, what do you do in your campaign ? (I think Seeker95 uses contingency/cure combos in his campaign :) )
kSquared 10-31-04, 07:23 PM	if you have a neutral Wiz10/Rgr10 (quite a strange PC isn't it?), he can cast both permanency and magic fang without a second spellcaster ... That's twenty levels to get +1 to a natural weapon, and it costs you 500 xp, which is the same XP cost you'd pay to make an item worth 12,500 gp. In other words, you're telling us you'd rather have a +1 natural weapon rather than a +2 manufactured weapon and a 4,500 gp magic item. I say let the player do it if he wants to. :P
RaistlinBN 11-01-04, 02:19 AM	I concur with the ruling that contingency may be cast on a spell not of the wizard/sorcerer description. The language is certainly open enough to allow almost any pairing of spells, regardless of origin, so long as they meet the restrictions provided within the text of this spell. For this reason, it seems to me that spellcasters MAY work in tandem with each other, assuming that all prereqs are met. I would also allow the spell to be cast from a wand, scroll, or staff because all effects from aforementioned magical items function IDENTICALLY to those cast directly by a wizard/sorc. I'm with Seeker, Heron and KSquared on this one...unless evidence can be provided to the contrary. Raist
Baba Yaga 11-01-04, 06:06 AM	If you're playing FR, there is an 8th level spell called Alamanthor's Return which allows an arcane caster to duplicate any spell he's seen cast (8th level or under), including divine spells, by paying a 1000xp point penalty and any other XP point penalty the duplicated spell may have. Regular contingency can't create this effect, but the Craft Contingent Spell Feat allows any spell to be made contingent. It may be broken it may not be but it will allow a wizard or sorcerer to have a heal kick off.
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-01-04, 10:19 AM	If you're playing FR, there is an 8th level spell called Alamanthor's Return <snip>I think it's actually a 9th-level spell...not that it makes any difference, since you're correct about the Craft Contingent Spell feat. Craft Contingent Spell (Unapproachable East) would allow a 150-hp heal spell to be placed on a creature for [SL 6 x CL 15 x 100gp / 2] 4,500gp + 360xp. I don't think allowing Contingency to replicate this feat is broken. Why? Four reasons: (1) Contingency is limited to Personal range, while the feat allows you to place spells on any creature. (2) Spells placed through Contingency have a 1 day/CL duration, versus the "permanent until activated" duration of the Craft Contingent Spell feat. (2) Spells placed through the Contingency spell are limited to 1/3 CL, versus no such limitation for the Craft Contingent Spell feat. (4) Only one Contingency spell can be active at a time, versus the "one contingent spell per hit dice" limitation of the feat.
tarkin 11-01-04, 11:44 AM	I am so dissapointed in you guys. Especially Seeker95. He is usually so thorough. Did you not read his intro? He specifically said English was not his first language. You can't just trust them to quote the relevant part, you have to read the spell description, ESPECIALLY when the poster admits he can't read english well. Sorry, but according to the SRD, you are not allowed to have someone else cast the spell You can place another spell upon your person so that it comes into effect under some condition you dictate when casting contingency. The contingency spell and the companion spell are cast at the same time. The 10-minute casting time is the minimum total for both castings; if the companion spell has a casting time longer than 10 minutes, use that instead. The words "You can place" mean you and ONLY you can cast the spell. The 6th level spell Contingency does not allow a 2nd person to cast the spell, you must be the person casting the spell. Yes there are other, higher level spells and feats that let you get around this limitation of Contingency. This was also mentioned in pacing by the Sage when he discussed the spell contingency in a Dragon Magazine Article.
kSquared 11-01-04, 12:03 PM	This was also mentioned in pacing by the Sage when he discussed the spell contingency in a Dragon Magazine Article.Assuming that's right, that settles it then. But what about casting it from a spell completion item or spell trigger item? Are "you" casting the spell then? btw, disappointed has one s, two p's. ;)
Seeker95 11-01-04, 12:09 PM	I am so dissapointed in you guys. Especially Seeker95. He is usually so thorough. Did you not read his intro? The words "You can place" mean you and ONLY you can cast the spell.tarkin, I am disappointed in you for jumping the gun. Did you not read the entire thread? We already covered this. And left it to interpretation based on almost identical language in permancency (where spells listed in the approved RAW list are not even on the wizard list). There is no RAW answer to the question. There is language that can lead to multiple conclusions and interpertations. This is an area of ambiguity in the rules. Clarifying ambiguity is one of the roles of the DM. Whichever way you interpret is inherently a house rule. And, as has already been said, it is up to the DM. One DM may see it clear as day that the wizard casting contingency must also cast the contingent spell. Another DM may see it clear as day that there is no restriction. Yet another DM may see that this is a muddy area in the rules, and simply rule according to his or her own opinion on the matter. I fall in that third group. And in so doing, I allow it. (Besides, how can a wizard cast two spells at the same time? This is one of the requirements of the spell!) :P
tarkin 11-01-04, 12:57 PM	Re time: The spell specifically states that you can do it, that the 10 minute casting time includes the casting of the other spell. As for Permancy, it specifies which spells you may make permanent on other creatures, negating the problem for them.
Seeker95 11-01-04, 03:13 PM	I'm not questioning whether you are convinced of the accuracy of your ruling, tarkin. It is a perfectly valid ruling. But it is just that -- your ruling. Derived from an interpretation of other statements, rather than a direct in-the-rules statement. Through your interpretation of other statements, you have come to a conclusion on this question. That is what we call a house rule. For the record, my conclusion is also a house rule. And an equally valid one.
Nom 11-01-04, 04:30 PM	As for Permancy, it specifies which spells you may make permanent on other creatures, negating the problem for them.Even permanency says "you cast the desired spell and then follow it with the permanency spell". Technically, this is for making spells permanent on yourself, but the only specific changes when dealing with non-personal targets are that they're non-personal and do not have special protection against dispel magic. Still not clear whether "you cast" includes scrolls and/or other items.
Ghybhay 11-01-04, 05:23 PM	I am so dissapointed in you guys. Especially Seeker95. He is usually so thorough. Did you not read his intro? He specifically said English was not his first language. You can't just trust them to quote the relevant part, you have to read the spell description, ESPECIALLY when the poster admits he can't read english well. Thanks Tarkin for defending me. I think I understand literary english but it is the slang which poses more problems to me. But don't worry tarkin, I'll try to improve me in english( (high school for me, it was 8 years ago, and in my job, I never use english, so I do my best :) or what I can ;) So I'm in fact a french DM and sometimes translation of the PHB in french can be different from the exact meaning in english in the SRD. I've asked the same question on french boards and I think the whole problem is the french translation of the spell. On french board, DMs said there's a big mistake of meaning in the two first sentences of the spell description . The spell description in french doesn't begin with "You can place another spell upon your person ...[SRD]". But it begins with "Ce sort permet d�en lancer un autre...[french PHB]" which means "This spell allows the casting of a second one...". And the second sentence is more confusing in french. It's not "The contingency spell and the companion spell are cast at the same time [SRD]". but instead it's "Les deux sorts sont jet�s � la suite l�un de l�autre. [french PHB]". This means in english : "The two spell are casted one after the other." The rest of the description has quite the same meaning in french and in english. So in the french version of the spell description they never speak of "YOU can.." and of the "cast at the same time" part. To conclude, let's say my question came from a bad translation problem. On the french boards, they think no one can create a contingency spell with a second spellcaster providing the companion spell. They refer to the SRD in english to explain the problem of meaning.
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-01-04, 07:01 PM	Once we recognize the problem of semantics, the next question we have to address is "Does it become a problem (make things imbalanced or plain broken) to allow a second spellcaster to cast the second, contingencied spell?" I personally do not think this creates a problem. Yes, it might allow you to have spells from other magical disciplines placed on you. Yes, there are some pretty useful spells in other magical disciplines. However, there are numerous ways an intelligent DM can limit such situations. I won't list them here, I'll just leave it at this: Don't fall into the mindset that PCs deserve everything they want. I personally allow spellcasters to work together with Contingency and Permanency.