Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SdEoXgY 06-10-05, 04:27 PM	With Contingency (6th lvl spell PHB pg 213), if the spell stored is a Mirror Image (2nd lvl spell pg 254) and the condition was "spellcaster is the target of a melee attack" A. Would the contigency go off before the attack (making the attacker roll which image it hits)? I am fairly positive the answer would be yes, if it was worded hit (instead of target), I would say after the first successful hit. B. If the spellcaster was unaware of the attacker (attacking from invisibilty or in total darkness), would the Contingency still go off? Ultimately the question is whether the spell is Omnipotent when it comes to meeting the condition set by the casting of the spell. Look forward to your responses.
tarkin 06-10-05, 04:57 PM	A) Caster decides which way it goes off by wording it properly. He could say "After I get hit", or he could say "If someone attempts to hit me". After I get hit activates afterward. Attempts to hit me activates before they hit, and may go off even if they roll a natural one, or worse, are attempting to do a helpfull touch spell such as Cure Light Wounds. B) Spell caster need not be aware of the situation for the contingency to activate. Note this DOES allow contigency to act as a horribly poor form of divination. But it is not omnipotent, it has some clear limitations, including the fact that if you get too complex/convulated, it fails entirely.
SdEoXgY 06-10-05, 05:06 PM	B) Spell caster need not be aware of the situation for the contingency to activate. Note this DOES allow contigency to act as a horribly poor form of divination. But it is not omnipotent, it has some clear limitations, including the fact that if you get too complex/convulated, it fails entirely. By any chance do have a reference to this, maybe another spell that works that way? If not that, maybe your logic on why it would work that way?
SdEoXgY 06-11-05, 02:35 AM	Lets start with the condition of "spellcaster is the target of a melee attack". Pretty standard, fairly simple. Situation: Friendly "healer" who has in the past healed the character. Now is dominated, which the spellcaster is unaware of. Action: "Healer" attempts to touch character to harm the "spellcaster" and is willing, expecting a healing spell. Result: does the Contingency go off or not? p.s. Keep in mind I might have agreed with the horribly poor divination argument except contingency is a evocation spell.
bave 06-11-05, 08:20 AM	Lets start with the condition of "spellcaster is the target of a melee attack". Pretty standard, fairly simple. Situation: Friendly "healer" who has in the past healed the character. Now is dominated, which the spellcaster is unaware of. Action: "Healer" attempts to touch character to harm the "spellcaster" and is willing, expecting a healing spell. Result: does the Contingency go off or not? p.s. Keep in mind I might have agreed with the horribly poor divination argument except contingency is a evocation spell. Yes, because even though the character may not know its a Harm, contingency always knows :) Not only that but the word attack implies that any offensive action, not necessarily a game mechanic, so his prior healing touches were not offensive and therefor would not relate, IMHO.
SdEoXgY 06-11-05, 08:51 AM	Right there, that is where you lost me. I have read contignency, and I don't see anywhere in the spell that says that it always knows? Now it definately is a simpler way of running the spell, but I still don't see where you are getting that from. Even the point in the spell where it talks about how it goes off does not say that. I agree that I had assumed the same thing, but I still don't see how that argument is supported by the rules. The other side is that contignency fires based on the perception of the caster. At this point, I don't think that either side is supported by the rules, unless someone can point me in the right direction? I suspect that the intention of the spell was to have it Omnipotent when it comes to the conditions set by the casting but it definatly is not supported in the rules.
SdEoXgY 06-11-05, 09:04 AM	Never mind, I found the line I was looking for. After reading it in the SRD I can see where it says "In all cases" (I double checked the phb and see that it is just after the various examples). I missed it the first few times because I rarely read the examples. :weep: "In all cases" lends well to the Omnipotent angle.
NeueRegel 06-11-05, 10:40 AM	The spells Magic Mouth and Phase Door include some stuff. Both, even the 7th level Phase Door fall short of what I think we all expect of Contingency. The Ring of Counterspells notes that the wearer need not be aware, or even know that the ring functioned when it did. I'm sure there are others. Seems that I've seen this question bounced around since Advanced D&D. Neue
Norhg 06-11-05, 10:54 AM	I'm sure there are others. Seems that I've seen this question bounced around since Advanced D&D. Yes, it has. My question has been, "why isn't magic omnipotent?". Wish is, with enough epic levels epic spells can do anything. But, just how powerfull is a contigency? I have always said that contigencies are self aware with a limited foresight. They know what is going to happen to the body they protect, but not untill a few moments before. They can't target anything that doesn't lie in direct relation to the body. Is this restrictive? I don't know, but my players suffer through it. I do belive that the Caster has nothing to do with a Contigency going off. There the Contigency is entirely self-reliant.
redraven 06-11-05, 04:14 PM	Contingency is omnipotent by the rules. In the Thaumaturgist (DMG, p. 197) description for their Contingent Conjuration ability, one of the examples includes summoning an eladrin as a messenger "if the king falls ill," something the Thaumaturgist would have no idea of. So, as tarkin mentioned, you can use Contingency as a sort of Divination spell. For example, "When the lich leaves its tomb, cast Mage Armor" will let you know that the lich has left its tomb regardless of where you are or what you were doing. Of course, you'd probably have to be more specific about which lich and which tomb, but you get the general idea of how you can use the spell for Divinations.
SdEoXgY 06-11-05, 06:27 PM	Hey Guys, I already quoted the proper text. "In all cases" This is pretty clear if you ask me. All cases is all cases. If you have a case for thinking that "In all cases" would not included all cases, I would like to see your reasoning? Thanks
Vaelan 06-12-05, 02:16 AM	Hey Guys, I already quoted the proper text. "In all cases" This is pretty clear if you ask me. All cases is all cases. If you have a case for thinking that "In all cases" would not included all cases, I would like to see your reasoning? Thanks The text you didn't actually quote isn't relevant. It is only clarifying that when the conditions are met, the contingent spell is triggered. Since the spell gives no limitations to the conditions you are able to set, any conditions are viable. On a completely irrelavant subject: since Contingency isn't a divination, I have (house-)ruled that it can't see into the future
SdEoXgY 06-13-05, 10:32 PM	Got a response back from customer service on this one, and they nailed it. *** With Contingency (6th lvl spell PHB pg 213), if the spell stored is a Mirror Image (2nd lvl spell pg 254) and the condition was "spellcaster is the target of a melee attack" A. Would the contigency go off before the attack (making the attacker roll which image it hits)? B. If the spellcaster was unaware of the attacker (attacking from invisibilty or in total darkness), would the Contingency still go off? Answer: A. No. B. No. The spell is not omniscient. It will not trigger if something might happen to you, like someone you do not see swings a sword at you. Something must actually happen to you to trigger the contingency. Falling, injury, incapacitation, command word, rolling a saving throw, each are all viable triggers. Good Gaming! Sam S. Customer Service Representative Wizards of the Coast *** No house ruling needed. We all (it seems) have been giving way to much power to the spell. For thouse that like to say that customer service gets it wrong, please point to anything in the spell discriptions that contridicts thier ruling. From the phb, it says "In all cases, the contingency immediately brings into effect the companion spell, the latter being "cast" instantaneously when the prescribed circumstances occur" As stated by CS, I think it brings the spell in line with most other 6th lvl spells.
Loren Pechtel 06-14-05, 01:47 AM	I'm inclined to say that contingency knows exactly what the target of the contingency knows, nothing more, nothing less. One point about the problem in the OP: It doesn't matter when it goes off. It's not going to draw off an attack because the attacker is already aimed at the right target even if the spell goes off before he hits. The enemy does know which image is real in this case.
redraven 06-14-05, 03:30 PM	For thouse that like to say that customer service gets it wrong, please point to anything in the spell discriptions that contridicts thier ruling. From the phb, it says "In all cases, the contingency immediately brings into effect the companion spell, the latter being "cast" instantaneously when the prescribed circumstances occur" As stated by CS, I think it brings the spell in line with most other 6th lvl spells. While they may be correct in saying it isn't omniscient in terms of knowing the future, nothing they said contradicts all the other rulings made based on events that take place with no knowledge from the caster. It will trigger off a "when I take damage" regardless of that source of damage (such as from a unseen attacker). CS is just saying that it won't trigger off of possibilities, which no one is really arguing here. For your Mirror Image example, a better trigger would be "When a hostile creature comes within melee range of me." Contingency does need to trigger off of an event, but nothing CS has stated contradicts it being used for Divination purposes or otherwise triggering off of events that the caster has no way of knowing have happened. The Thaumaturgist example proves this.
SdEoXgY 06-14-05, 04:15 PM	While they may be correct in saying it isn't omniscient in terms of knowing the future, nothing they said contradicts all the other rulings made based on events that take place with no knowledge from the caster. It will trigger off a "when I take damage" regardless of that source of damage (such as from a unseen attacker). CS is just saying that it won't trigger off of possibilities, which no one is really arguing here. For your Mirror Image example, a better trigger would be "When a hostile creature comes within melee range of me." Contingency does need to trigger off of an event, but nothing CS has stated contradicts it being used for Divination purposes or otherwise triggering off of events that the caster has no way of knowing have happened. The Thaumaturgist example proves this. Where to start, first, the problem with the Thaumaturgist argument is it is a separate ability. In no way saying that it works the same way as regular contingency. You also say that “other rulings made based on events that take place with no knowledge from the caster.” then go on to say “it will trigger off a “when I take damage” regardless of that source”. I must have missed your point because obviously the caster IS going to be aware when it takes damage. Being aware of the source is irrelevant to “when I take damage” Also, you’re "When a hostile creature comes within melee range of me." will not work. CS specifically wrote “Something must actually happen to you to trigger the contingency”. A hostile creature coming within melee range is not something that is actually happening to you. Contingency needs more then an event, Contingency must have an event that happens to the caster.
tarkin 06-14-05, 04:41 PM	1) WoTC general Customer Service is known to be crappy. They rountinely give out information that directly contradicts FAQ, Errrata, Sage Advice articles. I consider it to be the source of last resort. There answer here demonstrates why. 2) If the caster needs to be aware of it, then seeing them attack would be sufficient. I could word the spell "When I see someone about to attack me", or even "when I think someone is about to attack me". Because of the ability to READY an attack against anyone that gets within range of you, we know that a caster can tell when someone is about to attack you. That part of there answer is just plain wrong. If you use this kind of wording then the spell would require the caster to be aware of the attack. 3) Although I have never heard any such ruling concerning the condition being required to involve the caster, it seems at least partly reasonable. I can understand ruling that it can't forsee the future and the condition must involve something happening to you, but in that case it still allows the "if I think" outlet. Also, I can NOT see it requiring that you concisouly know about it. That would mean that you can't set it up to Dispell a charm effect, as you don't know you are charmed, nor could it protect you when you were asleep. Part Two of their answer, "no" is pure foolishness, the spellcaster definitely does NOT have to be aware of it, unless the condition specifies "when I think someone is about to...". 4) You could also set up wording that helped in many situations pre-damage, i.e. "When anything breaks my skin" should still work before you take more than 1 hitpoint of damage, as would "Teleport me home after I have taken enough damage to knock me unconcious", should also happen exactly when you hit 0 hitpoints, protecting you from further damage even if you were at 1 hit point and were hit by a blow for 35 points. P.S. Note, a common Contingency condition is if I say "gobble". Because Speaking is a Free action that you can do outside of your turn, you would be able to do it when you see someone coming towards you in preparation to attack
SdEoXgY 06-14-05, 05:22 PM	1. I agree, but in this case I can find nothing that contradicts their answer. 2. Caster does not need to be aware, it is based "Something must actually happen to you to trigger the contingency". When you say "That part of there answer is just plain wrong", which answer are you refering too (I assume you are referring to answer 2)? 3. The reason why 2 is no is because it is based off of 1. If 1 is a No then 2 HAS to be no. The only way 2 could be different then 1 would be if 1 was yes. It in no way says that the caster needs to be aware. If you read the whole response and keep it in context, you will see what they were saying. 4. I see no way contingency can interput a event while it is going on. Either of the events you speak of would go off completely, then the contingency would take effect, after the whole damage was done. I would be interested in hearing of any situation spelled out in the rules allowing point by point damage allocation. Finaly, in reference to you ps, command word is a viable option. The only thing is it should not allow an interuption of an event. Case in point, if a enemy charged the spell caster, they should not be able to use the free action during the charge, either after or before. If the enemy were to move up, then attack, I would allow it between actions. That is just my take on it, as a DM you are free to rule either way
tarkin 06-14-05, 05:28 PM	I generally agree with the rule that you can't interupt an event already in progress. You can't step out of the way of an arrow that has already been fired. The problem is the Contigency is also an event that is already in progress, and the spell specifically states instantly. So with two simultaneous events already in progress, which happens completes first? Or do they both do a partial and complete at the same time? I would rule that the Contigency, spefically stated to complete instantly, has priority and the attack can not interupt the contigency from activating. However, I can see the other answer working as a viable interpretation.
redraven 06-14-05, 05:34 PM	Where to start, first, the problem with the Thaumaturgist argument is it is a separate ability. In no way saying that it works the same way as regular contingency. Did you even read it? It says "This functions as described for the contingency spell, including having the thaumaturgist cast the summoning spell beforehand." That seems pretty explicit in that they work the same, with the only difference being that you can use summoning spells instead of being limited to "spells that affect your person." You also say that “other rulings made based on events that take place with no knowledge from the caster.” then go on to say “it will trigger off a “when I take damage” regardless of that source”. I must have missed your point because obviously the caster IS going to be aware when it takes damage. Being aware of the source is irrelevant to “when I take damage” My apologies. What I meant is that if you key it off of damage from a specific creature type, such as vampires, then it will trigger when a vampire damages you regardless of whether you know the creature was a vampire or not. You could also make the trigger something like "when an invisible creature is within 60 feet of me" and it will trigger regardless of whether you detect the invisible creature beforehand. Also, you’re "When a hostile creature comes within melee range of me." will not work. CS specifically wrote “Something must actually happen to you to trigger the contingency”. A hostile creature coming within melee range is not something that is actually happening to you. Contingency needs more then an event, Contingency must have an event that happens to the caster. I was thinking of addressing this in my prior response, but figured it wasn't necessary due to the fact that they were ruling based on your own example. First of all, they have no basis at all to make such a judgment when the spell text does not support that conclusion. The text says: "You can place another spell upon your person so that it comes into effect under some condition you dictate when casting contingency." Not "under some condition that affects you," but simply "under some condition you dictate." Second, the Thaumaturgist description lists an example that has no bearing on the caster. Finally, you cannot even argue "intent of the spell" here since Customer Service is not the designer of the spell, and their responses are neither errata nor the FAQ. So, basically, no. Customer Service's response was towards your Contingency trigger, which they interpreted as being not an event. That's fine, and they're probably right in that regard. It does not, however, contradict anything I have been saying nor does it prevent the use of Contingency as a pseudo-divination spell.
SdEoXgY 06-14-05, 05:56 PM	Did you even read it? It says "This functions as described for the contingency spell, including having the thaumaturgist cast the summoning spell beforehand." That seems pretty explicit in that they work the same, with the only difference being that you can use summoning spells instead of being limited to "spells that affect your person." Did you actually read it. Lets start with the first sentence, "can prepare a summoning or calling spell ahead of time to be triggered by some OTHER event". That is clearly different then the standard contingency, unless you are saying that contingency also list "some other event" in the spell description (don't bother checking, it do not). Also, I want to thank you for the quote "when an invisible creature is within 60 feet of me", I have not laughed so hard in months. I am not going to even pretend to understand how you might think that would work. Anyway, I don't think anyone is arguing the intent of the spell, and if you don't think their response "contradict anything I have been saying" then there is not much I am going to be able to do to help you out. Contingency, a evocation spell, can not be used as "pseudo-divination" spell, no matter how far you twist the logic. Lastly, in the same token, there is not text supporting your interpetation of the rules. I guess it all has to do with taste, some have it, some don't.
redraven 06-14-05, 06:26 PM	Did you actually read it. Lets start with the first sentence, "can prepare a summoning or calling spell ahead of time to be triggered by some OTHER event". That is clearly different then the standard contingency, unless you are saying that contingency also list "some other event" in the spell description (don't bother checking, it do not). Ignoring for a moment that the ability clearly says "This functions as described for the contingency spell [...]," do you honestly believe "some OTHER event" is any different from "under some condition," especially when Customer Service just got through telling you Contingency requires events? Also, I want to thank you for the quote "when an invisible creature is within 60 feet of me", I have not laughed so hard in months. I am not going to even pretend to understand how you might think that would work. Quite simple. It is "some condition you dictate when casting contingency." I should also mention, since we are sharing what amuses us, that I find attempts at sarcasm over the internet to total strangers amusing as well. Anyway, I don't think anyone is arguing the intent of the spell, and if you don't think their response "contradict anything I have been saying" then there is not much I am going to be able to do to help you out. Contingency, a evocation spell, can not be used as "pseudo-divination" spell, no matter how far you twist the logic. I am confused - you are the one who asked the question, not me, so there is nothing at all that you would need to help me out with. Moreover, your claim here was made without any justification whatsoever. Please provide some. Lastly, in the same token, there is not text supporting your interpetation of the rules. I guess it all has to do with taste, some have it, some don't. Incorrect. My interpretation of the rules follows the text of the rules themselves. "You can place another spell upon your person so that it comes into effect under some condition you dictate when casting contingency." This, in conjunction with the example provided in the DMG which "functions as described for the contingency spell," supports my interpretation. What supports yours? Further, what does taste have to do with anything?
SdEoXgY 06-14-05, 06:47 PM	do you honestly believe "some OTHER event" is any different from "under some condition," Actually I do, and so does the Dictionary. My interpretation of the rules follows the text of the rules themselves I like how "if the king falls ill" under a special class ability turns into "when an invisible creature is within 60 feet of me". I can see how that is following the text of the rules :clap: Anyway, not to digress into prove this, prove that text-fest. I have taken some of the excellent questions, including where they got the ruling from, and sent it back to CS to see what they have to say.