Countering Disjunction with Contingency [Archive] - Wizards Community

Countering Disjunction with Contingency [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Spikes01k
09-01-07, 09:46 PM I am not an expert on casting spells, but my wife was wondering if contingency linked with disjunction spell can be made to counter a disjunction spell instead of casting the said spell.

Thank you for the help
Spikes01k
PhaedrusXY
09-01-07, 10:00 PM Hmm... interesting question. I guess you're using Craft Contingent Spell to make the Contingency, right? If I were DMing, I'd allow it, but I'm not sure it is really supported by the rules.
Cold Napalm
09-02-07, 12:18 AM Contingency as per spell can't be used for spells above 6th level so you can't use that for a disjunction. You could however have the contingency hold an AMF which gives a really good chance to negate a disjuction (100-1%/CL of the disjunction caster).
Dheran
09-02-07, 09:52 AM You can use your Contingency to just get out of the Close range of Mordenkainen's Disjunction. Dimension Door would work well for this purpose. Since DD is being triggered on someone else's turn, you'll be able to act without further delay:After using this spell, you can’t take any other actions until your next turn. If I keep Feather Fall handy I like to specify DD to send me up 100' and back 100'. (Since D&D doesn't have facing, "back" is defined as the reverse direction of my last movement.)
Kyuketsukiouji
09-02-07, 10:10 AM Fabricating a shell made out of thin wood around yourself would also work, since that would stop the emanation, if I remember correctly.

You'd have to break out of it, but that beats getting hosed.
runestar
09-02-07, 10:26 AM I am not sure how sensitive contingency really is. I mean - how accurate is the spell when it comes to identifying what spells are being cast? Can it really identify a disjunction spell with pinpoint accuracy as and when it is being cast?
Dheran
09-02-07, 10:29 AM Fabricating a shell made out of thin wood around yourself would also work, since that would stop the emanation, if I remember correctly. That's a clever idea.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) You don't even need to use wood; paper would do just as well as long as it covers you completely. The limitation on Fabricate is that it requires a successful Craft skill check to succeed on converting the raw material into the finished product. I don't think most DMs are going to set the DC for making a closed paper bag very high, though. ;)
Dheran
09-02-07, 10:35 AM I am not sure how sensitive contingency really is. I mean - how accurate is the spell when it comes to identifying what spells are being cast? Can it really identify a disjunction spell with pinpoint accuracy as and when it is being cast? Yes, it can. It's magic, after all, so it can have any sensitivity your DM will allow.You can place another spell upon your person so that it comes into effect under some condition you dictate when casting contingency.

The conditions needed to bring the spell into effect must be clear, although they can be general. In all cases, the contingency immediately brings into effect the companion spell, the latter being “cast” instantaneously when the prescribed circumstances occur. If complicated or convoluted conditions are prescribed, the whole spell combination (contingency and the companion magic) may fail when called on. The companion spell occurs based solely on the stated conditions, regardless of whether you want it to. Naming a specific spell as the trigger is extremely clear, so there can't be any worry about "convoluted conditions". And since this functions just like non-magical readied actions, it happens before the Mordenkainen's Disjunction goes off.
runestar
09-02-07, 09:50 PM So hypothetically, I could just work around it by creating a new spell which functions almost identically to disjunction, just with a different name...:P
ArcTan
09-03-07, 03:21 AM So hypothetically, I could just work around it by creating a new spell which functions almost identically to disjunction, just with a different name...:P

Yes, this is the annoying but unavoidable problem with a system where magic is broken into discrete named units called "spells".

That is, it's avoidable, but only by carefully making sure these discrete units don't step on each other's toes in this way through artificial limitation of the magic system. Allowing you to research any variation of any spell in existence and call it a "new spell" causes it to break down.
groveborn
09-03-07, 04:18 AM Fabricating a shell made out of thin wood around yourself would also work, since that would stop the emanation, if I remember correctly.

You'd have to break out of it, but that beats getting hosed.

Too much time required. Just wear a big damned non-magical cloak that covers you. A robe even. Wrap each magic item in paper....even when in use.

Also, you only need a crafting check with that spell when trying to make fine items, such as sculptures, weapons, armor, spoons...fingernail clippers
ArcTan
09-03-07, 04:23 AM Too much time required. Just wear a big damned non-magical cloak that covers you. A robe even. Wrap each magic item in paper....even when in use.

...Which wouldn't work, because cloaks, robes and paper do not provide cover.

Think about how ridiculous this is. You can't attack someone who has total cover. If a big cloak provided total cover, a mage wearing a big cloak would be totally invulnerable to being attacked by a Barbarian with a greatsword.

Ducking under a blanket is clearly not protecting yourself with a "solid object" that physically blocks attacks. It's a form of *concealment*, like hiding in mist or fog or tall grass. Moreover, it's *partial* concealment since, unlike total pitch blackness or invisibility, hiding under a blanket still lets someone see where you are by the lump you're making. If it's *not* a great big blanket but merely a cloak, it doesn't even obscure your position -- it provides you with nothing other than making it hard to recognize your face and making it hard for you to see. (It's like the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.)

This is all academic, of course, because concealment provides no protection against area spells.

Look, no equipment provides total cover by default except the tower shield. The tower shield gives you the idea of what total cover is -- a big solid barrier that makes it literally impossible to attack you without destroying the barrier first. If it doesn't block a sword or an arrow, it's not cover -- because the *first* and *fundamental* thing total cover does is make it impossible to hit you with regular attacks.
ArcTan
09-03-07, 04:26 AM You don't need any fancy trick with fabricate, by the way. This sort of situation is *exactly* what spells like wall of force were invented for. Stone shape, if you can't afford that yet.
groveborn
09-04-07, 02:28 AM ...Which wouldn't work, because cloaks, robes and paper do not provide cover.

Think about how ridiculous this is. You can't attack someone who has total cover. If a big cloak provided total cover, a mage wearing a big cloak would be totally invulnerable to being attacked by a Barbarian with a greatsword.

Ducking under a blanket is clearly not protecting yourself with a "solid object" that physically blocks attacks. It's a form of *concealment*, like hiding in mist or fog or tall grass. Moreover, it's *partial* concealment since, unlike total pitch blackness or invisibility, hiding under a blanket still lets someone see where you are by the lump you're making. If it's *not* a great big blanket but merely a cloak, it doesn't even obscure your position -- it provides you with nothing other than making it hard to recognize your face and making it hard for you to see. (It's like the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.)

This is all academic, of course, because concealment provides no protection against area spells.

Look, no equipment provides total cover by default except the tower shield. The tower shield gives you the idea of what total cover is -- a big solid barrier that makes it literally impossible to attack you without destroying the barrier first. If it doesn't block a sword or an arrow, it's not cover -- because the *first* and *fundamental* thing total cover does is make it impossible to hit you with regular attacks.

Then you must define "solid". Obviously, by chemical analysis, fabric is most definitely solid. It's not liquid, it's not gas, it's not plasma, it's solid! :)

That being said, I was trying to show how simply ridiculous using a several round action to protect against a spell being cast in the current round is. Stop taking everything I say to heart you silly person. Seriously, stop it.
ArcTan
09-04-07, 02:46 AM Then you must define "solid". Obviously, by chemical analysis, fabric is most definitely solid. It's not liquid, it's not gas, it's not plasma, it's solid! :)

And obviously, that's not what the writers meant by "solid", and our language is a natural language where words can have multiple meanings!

That being said, I was trying to show how simply ridiculous using a several round action to protect against a spell being cast in the current round is. Stop taking everything I say to heart you silly person. Seriously, stop it.

So just criticize that with something that actually makes sense as a substitute (carrying a tower shield, cast wall of force).

The fact that you don't put any thought into the wrong things you say doesn't make them less wrong.
ravenshrike
09-04-07, 12:54 PM Yes, this is the annoying but unavoidable problem with a system where magic is broken into discrete named units called "spells".

That is, it's avoidable, but only by carefully making sure these discrete units don't step on each other's toes in this way through artificial limitation of the magic system. Allowing you to research any variation of any spell in existence and call it a "new spell" causes it to break down.

How about, "when targeted by or would be in the area of effect of any 8th level or higher magic dispelling spell."? Clear, and has the benefit of getting around those pesky new spells.
PhaedrusXY
09-04-07, 12:59 PM How about, "when targeted by or would be in the area of effect of any 8th level or higher magic dispelling spell."? Clear, and has the benefit of getting around those pesky new spells.That's pretty complicated, I think. I really hate how unclear the rules for what can act as a trigger are in Contingency.
groveborn
09-05-07, 03:15 AM And obviously, that's not what the writers meant by "solid", and our language is a natural language where words can have multiple meanings!

So just criticize that with something that actually makes sense as a substitute (carrying a tower shield, cast wall of force).

The fact that you don't put any thought into the wrong things you say doesn't make them less wrong.

If I wanted to criticize it in that way, I would have. Thank you Mother for trying to tell me how to post. I think I don't need it. Have a bad day. Go bother someone else.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Spikes01k 09-01-07, 09:46 PM	I am not an expert on casting spells, but my wife was wondering if contingency linked with disjunction spell can be made to counter a disjunction spell instead of casting the said spell. Thank you for the help Spikes01k
PhaedrusXY 09-01-07, 10:00 PM	Hmm... interesting question. I guess you're using Craft Contingent Spell to make the Contingency, right? If I were DMing, I'd allow it, but I'm not sure it is really supported by the rules.
Cold Napalm 09-02-07, 12:18 AM	Contingency as per spell can't be used for spells above 6th level so you can't use that for a disjunction. You could however have the contingency hold an AMF which gives a really good chance to negate a disjuction (100-1%/CL of the disjunction caster).
Dheran 09-02-07, 09:52 AM	You can use your Contingency to just get out of the Close range of Mordenkainen's Disjunction. Dimension Door would work well for this purpose. Since DD is being triggered on someone else's turn, you'll be able to act without further delay:After using this spell, you can’t take any other actions until your next turn. If I keep Feather Fall handy I like to specify DD to send me up 100' and back 100'. (Since D&D doesn't have facing, "back" is defined as the reverse direction of my last movement.)
Kyuketsukiouji 09-02-07, 10:10 AM	Fabricating a shell made out of thin wood around yourself would also work, since that would stop the emanation, if I remember correctly. You'd have to break out of it, but that beats getting hosed.
runestar 09-02-07, 10:26 AM	I am not sure how sensitive contingency really is. I mean - how accurate is the spell when it comes to identifying what spells are being cast? Can it really identify a disjunction spell with pinpoint accuracy as and when it is being cast?
Dheran 09-02-07, 10:29 AM	Fabricating a shell made out of thin wood around yourself would also work, since that would stop the emanation, if I remember correctly. That's a clever idea.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) You don't even need to use wood; paper would do just as well as long as it covers you completely. The limitation on Fabricate is that it requires a successful Craft skill check to succeed on converting the raw material into the finished product. I don't think most DMs are going to set the DC for making a closed paper bag very high, though. ;)
Dheran 09-02-07, 10:35 AM	I am not sure how sensitive contingency really is. I mean - how accurate is the spell when it comes to identifying what spells are being cast? Can it really identify a disjunction spell with pinpoint accuracy as and when it is being cast? Yes, it can. It's magic, after all, so it can have any sensitivity your DM will allow.You can place another spell upon your person so that it comes into effect under some condition you dictate when casting contingency. The conditions needed to bring the spell into effect must be clear, although they can be general. In all cases, the contingency immediately brings into effect the companion spell, the latter being “cast” instantaneously when the prescribed circumstances occur. If complicated or convoluted conditions are prescribed, the whole spell combination (contingency and the companion magic) may fail when called on. The companion spell occurs based solely on the stated conditions, regardless of whether you want it to. Naming a specific spell as the trigger is extremely clear, so there can't be any worry about "convoluted conditions". And since this functions just like non-magical readied actions, it happens before the Mordenkainen's Disjunction goes off.
runestar 09-02-07, 09:50 PM	So hypothetically, I could just work around it by creating a new spell which functions almost identically to disjunction, just with a different name...:P
ArcTan 09-03-07, 03:21 AM	So hypothetically, I could just work around it by creating a new spell which functions almost identically to disjunction, just with a different name...:P Yes, this is the annoying but unavoidable problem with a system where magic is broken into discrete named units called "spells". That is, it's avoidable, but only by carefully making sure these discrete units don't step on each other's toes in this way through artificial limitation of the magic system. Allowing you to research any variation of any spell in existence and call it a "new spell" causes it to break down.
groveborn 09-03-07, 04:18 AM	Fabricating a shell made out of thin wood around yourself would also work, since that would stop the emanation, if I remember correctly. You'd have to break out of it, but that beats getting hosed. Too much time required. Just wear a big damned non-magical cloak that covers you. A robe even. Wrap each magic item in paper....even when in use. Also, you only need a crafting check with that spell when trying to make fine items, such as sculptures, weapons, armor, spoons...fingernail clippers
ArcTan 09-03-07, 04:23 AM	Too much time required. Just wear a big damned non-magical cloak that covers you. A robe even. Wrap each magic item in paper....even when in use. ...Which wouldn't work, because cloaks, robes and paper do not provide cover. Think about how ridiculous this is. You can't attack someone who has total cover. If a big cloak provided total cover, a mage wearing a big cloak would be totally invulnerable to being attacked by a Barbarian with a greatsword. Ducking under a blanket is clearly not protecting yourself with a "solid object" that physically blocks attacks. It's a form of concealment, like hiding in mist or fog or tall grass. Moreover, it's partial concealment since, unlike total pitch blackness or invisibility, hiding under a blanket still lets someone see where you are by the lump you're making. If it's not a great big blanket but merely a cloak, it doesn't even obscure your position -- it provides you with nothing other than making it hard to recognize your face and making it hard for you to see. (It's like the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.) This is all academic, of course, because concealment provides no protection against area spells. Look, no equipment provides total cover by default except the tower shield. The tower shield gives you the idea of what total cover is -- a big solid barrier that makes it literally impossible to attack you without destroying the barrier first. If it doesn't block a sword or an arrow, it's not cover -- because the first and fundamental thing total cover does is make it impossible to hit you with regular attacks.
ArcTan 09-03-07, 04:26 AM	You don't need any fancy trick with fabricate, by the way. This sort of situation is exactly what spells like wall of force were invented for. Stone shape, if you can't afford that yet.
groveborn 09-04-07, 02:28 AM	...Which wouldn't work, because cloaks, robes and paper do not provide cover. Think about how ridiculous this is. You can't attack someone who has total cover. If a big cloak provided total cover, a mage wearing a big cloak would be totally invulnerable to being attacked by a Barbarian with a greatsword. Ducking under a blanket is clearly not protecting yourself with a "solid object" that physically blocks attacks. It's a form of concealment, like hiding in mist or fog or tall grass. Moreover, it's partial concealment since, unlike total pitch blackness or invisibility, hiding under a blanket still lets someone see where you are by the lump you're making. If it's not a great big blanket but merely a cloak, it doesn't even obscure your position -- it provides you with nothing other than making it hard to recognize your face and making it hard for you to see. (It's like the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.) This is all academic, of course, because concealment provides no protection against area spells. Look, no equipment provides total cover by default except the tower shield. The tower shield gives you the idea of what total cover is -- a big solid barrier that makes it literally impossible to attack you without destroying the barrier first. If it doesn't block a sword or an arrow, it's not cover -- because the first and fundamental thing total cover does is make it impossible to hit you with regular attacks. Then you must define "solid". Obviously, by chemical analysis, fabric is most definitely solid. It's not liquid, it's not gas, it's not plasma, it's solid! :) That being said, I was trying to show how simply ridiculous using a several round action to protect against a spell being cast in the current round is. Stop taking everything I say to heart you silly person. Seriously, stop it.
ArcTan 09-04-07, 02:46 AM	Then you must define "solid". Obviously, by chemical analysis, fabric is most definitely solid. It's not liquid, it's not gas, it's not plasma, it's solid! :) And obviously, that's not what the writers meant by "solid", and our language is a natural language where words can have multiple meanings! That being said, I was trying to show how simply ridiculous using a several round action to protect against a spell being cast in the current round is. Stop taking everything I say to heart you silly person. Seriously, stop it. So just criticize that with something that actually makes sense as a substitute (carrying a tower shield, cast wall of force). The fact that you don't put any thought into the wrong things you say doesn't make them less wrong.
ravenshrike 09-04-07, 12:54 PM	Yes, this is the annoying but unavoidable problem with a system where magic is broken into discrete named units called "spells". That is, it's avoidable, but only by carefully making sure these discrete units don't step on each other's toes in this way through artificial limitation of the magic system. Allowing you to research any variation of any spell in existence and call it a "new spell" causes it to break down. How about, "when targeted by or would be in the area of effect of any 8th level or higher magic dispelling spell."? Clear, and has the benefit of getting around those pesky new spells.
PhaedrusXY 09-04-07, 12:59 PM	How about, "when targeted by or would be in the area of effect of any 8th level or higher magic dispelling spell."? Clear, and has the benefit of getting around those pesky new spells.That's pretty complicated, I think. I really hate how unclear the rules for what can act as a trigger are in Contingency.
groveborn 09-05-07, 03:15 AM	And obviously, that's not what the writers meant by "solid", and our language is a natural language where words can have multiple meanings! So just criticize that with something that actually makes sense as a substitute (carrying a tower shield, cast wall of force). The fact that you don't put any thought into the wrong things you say doesn't make them less wrong. If I wanted to criticize it in that way, I would have. Thank you Mother for trying to tell me how to post. I think I don't need it. Have a bad day. Go bother someone else.