|
I would think the cicumstances actually have to, you know, occur for the contingency to be triggered. So your evil wizard casts Time Stop, and your contingency whisks you away or whatever right as he finishes casting but before you're subject to any of the effects he puts into place during his spell.
Since Wizard A's Time Stop does not actually affect Wizard B, I don't think the Contingency would go off to begin with, since Wizard B is not "subject to a process that stops time".
Though you can get around that by rewording the Contingency to something like: "When an enemy gains the benefit of Time Stop, cast Teleport to Location X."
Regardless though, remember that Wizard A can't really "sockit to Wizard B", as Time Stop does not allow the caster to affect other creatures or attended objects. Wizard A could use a series of Walls of Stone to trap Wizard B, but could not stack debuffs or damage.
Yar!
I've been ninja'ed, but I'll continue anyways: The problem with this is, Time Stop does NOT affect anyone but the person who is casting it.
It is a personal spell. Wizard B is never subject to it, only wizard A is. This trigger for contingency will do nothing unless the wizard who has this contingency on him casts Time Stop.
Now, if you worded it so that "When anyone withing X feet of me casts Time Stop, then...", (where X is a number of feet predetermined by you) then the contingency absolutely would go off before the caster casting Time Stop would get the benefits of his Time Stop, as per the contingency. Actually being instantaneous is still faster than virtually instantaneous. (I say within so many feet because leaving it at just "an enemy" is fairly ambiguous. What determines who is an enemy, how many do you have, in this world let alone any other planes of existence. What about ones who are not but plan to betray you starting with a casting of Time Stop? If any single one potential enemy anywhere in the multiverse casts Time Stop, your Contingency goes pff without indication of who, what, or why).
Time Stop hasn't been an area of effect spell that hits other creatures since 2e AD&D.
~P
|
|
The answer is no. Time Stop cannot trigger a Contingency. Time Stop has a range of personal and a target of the caster. It cannot qualify to trigger Contingency since the spell does not affect your person.
That's incorrect. Pretty much any condition you set can trigger Contingency, the only limitations on spells are in relation to the one you set with the Contingency.
The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person and be of a spell level no higher than one-third your caster level (rounded down, maximum 6th level).
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 triggered. The companion spell occurs based solely on the stated conditions, regardless of whether you want it to.
You can use only one contingency spell at a time; if a second is cast, the first one (if still active) is dispelled."
It seems pretty clear. The contingency spell isn't cast until the conditions are met. After which the spell is cast immediately.
So Wiz A casts Time Stop... this triggers your contingency.
Time stop is resolved first.
After the extra time created by time stop is resolved then resolve the contingent spell immediately. Doesn't matter who's turn it is when you finish resolving the trigger you MUST then resolve the contingency.
So in this case Wiz A casts time stop and self buffs.
Even if it is still Wiz A's turn after you resolve the time stop you then Immediately resolve the contingent teleport spell. This removes Wiz B to the pre set location. Wiz A can now continue his turn.
Short answer: no.
|
|
No. because Time Stop isn't affecting you, it's just taking the casting mage briefly out of the timestream. You can't have a contingency based on spells that affect other people, especially when they are not in the same space/time metric that you are.
This is wrong. There's nothing in the spell that would prevent you from setting the parameters as "When someone casts Timestop within x area of my person, activate Greater Teleport to my secret base on the moon".
Well the trigger can be nearly anything...
Someone elses casting of a time stop is fair game as a condition.
He would just need to word it better.
|
|
Now, if you worded it so that "When anyone withing X feet of me casts Time Stop, then...", (where X is a number of feet predetermined by you) then the contingency absolutely would go off ....Fair question here...could you do that conditional? See, you can't know what someone is casting without passing a Spellcraft check. You might autopass the check at 30 feet or less, but you cannot know without actually making the check.
Can the spell make the check? It can't be you making the check (I mean, it's obvious to me it can't be you, since the a Contingency can fire even if you're not aware of the conditions that triggered it). How's that supposed to work?
I would say maybe you make the Spellcraft check and it's retroactively applicable? If you fail, your preset casting wouldn't be able to recognize the spell but if you succeed your spell knows because you know?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
You can't have a contingency based on spells that affect other people, ...
I'm being thick today, LazarX, but why not? That seems pretty par for the course. "If anybody within line of sight, who is not wearing one of the team's signet rings, starts casting a spell, bring up an anti-magic field."
|
|
You can't have a contingency based on spells that affect other people, ...I'm being thick today, LazarX, but why not? That seems pretty par for the course. "If anybody within line of sight, who is not wearing one of the team's signet rings, starts casting a spell, bring up an anti-magic field."
I will note that the contingency parameters are probably causing a little confusion here. Someone else casting Time Stop can certainly be a trigger for Contingency, however, the OP's trigger of "Teleport me to X if I'm subject to a process that stops time such as a Time Stop spell", won't work, because Timestop only affects the caster. So his wording won't work, but the basic premise is sound.
Yeah it's easy to think Time Stop actually stops time when it doesn't. All it does is create a bit of extra time for the caster.
Fair question here...could you do that conditional? See, you can't know what someone is casting without passing a Spellcraft check. You might autopass the check at 30 feet or less, but you cannot know without actually making the check.
Can the spell make the check? It can't be you making the check (I mean, it's obvious to me it can't be you, since the a Contingency can fire even if you're not aware of the conditions that triggered it). How's that supposed to work?
Just about any contingency you care to name could arguably be subject to a Perception check. Do you ask the spell to roll Perception too?
I would also like to point out that the conditions of Contingency do not require the caster to be aware of them.
You do not need to see or identify the casting of Time Stop as long as you worded your conditions in a manner such as how Pirate described above. You could be blinded, tied up, and even dead, yet your Contingency will still work. The spell is cast earlier in the day after-all, and I see no reason why magic will not teleport a dead body.
Also, the Contingency spells says:
In all cases, the contingency immediately brings into effect the companion spell, the latter being "cast" instantaneously when the prescribed circumstances occur.
This does not mean that the companion spell is cast immediately "after" the condition, it is cast immediately WHEN the circumstances occur. This would indicate to me that it does not occur after the Time Stop is in affect, it is cast simultaneously with Time Stop, meaning you successfully escape.
|
GrenMeera, depends on the wording of the contingency.
If you say, "when time stop is cast within 20' of me ..."
Then it would go off when it has been cast, not before or during, but when the spell is finished (has been cast).
If you worded it, "when time stop is being cast within 20' of me...."
then it would go off during the casting of time stop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So word it this way: "As soon as any creature within 120' of me begins casting 'time stop', teleport me to XXXX".
I see nothing in the "contingency" description that says the caster has to be aware of the situation for it to trigger contingency. Would anyone have a problem with: "If any invisible creature approaches within 30' of me, cast 'true seeing'"?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Contingency is actually a great divination spell. Be right back, I'm going to cast "If the Goldbach Conjecture is true, cast Dancing Lights".
Unfortunately, said condition came into effect prior to casting contingency. If it became true at some point during the duration of your contingency, then it would go off.
|
Contingency is actually a great divination spell. Be right back, I'm going to cast "If the Goldbach Conjecture is true, cast Dancing Lights".
If complicated or convoluted conditions are prescribed, the whole spell combination (contingency and the companion magic) may fail when triggered.
As you have to define what Goldbach Conjecture is in setting up your contingency, it become too complicated.
In both cases, the spell is being asked to detect something that the player couldn't (or didn't) know and respond to it in some fashion.
con·tin·gen·cy
/kənˈtinjənsē/
Noun
1) A future event or circumstance that is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty.
2) A provision for such an event or circumstance.Synonyms
chance - accident - eventuality - fortuity - possibility
In a certain regard, I do believe you have stated the actual purpose of the spell as a way of saying why you wouldn't allow it.
My 2 Cents:
How does the spell recognize these things in any case? How is the spell able to determine what a "melee attack" is? How does the spell know what "damage" is? What's "restrained" for the purposes of the spell?
You may think I'm nit picking, which I am, but I'm also pointing out that the spell is able to recognize these things and understand the intent of the wording of continingency spell despite having wording referencing how it does so. So, literally by magic, it's able to tell if you're taking HP damage, your friend is getting attacked in melee, or if there are shackles placed on your hands. Is it really such a stretch that the spell, is able to magically recognize when someone within a certain range is casting a certain spell?
I'm not saying that it can do everything though, no "anyone in the worlds says my name 3 times I teleport to them" type nonsense, but I think that triggering a continigency based on the casting of a spell within a certain proximity is totally fair game.
Zilvar, by your stance it seems you would disallow "cast stone to flesh on me if I am ever petrified" if it flesh to stone were cast by an invisible enemy with the silent spell feat simply because the former caster was unaware he was being attacked.
That is rubbish I say. Better to trust that your players are there to have fun and not to abuse the system. If you can't do that, your game has already lost (as it kind of requires trust).
I believe that the spell can know/discern things that the spellcaster couldn't (like a hidden enemy sneaking up on you). I also believe that the designers figured GMs and players wouldn't abuse that fact with things like "If X did/does Y, cast Z" and thus didn't bother to lay down a 100-page legal document describing the spell. This game relies on a trust system. Like most games, trust is implied.
It's assumed that players won't try to cheese the system with such obvious abuses. It's also assumed that GMs are smart enough to catch and stop such obvious abuses. As with anyone, players aren't always considerate of the fun of others, and GMs can be oblivious at times. That doesn't change the fact that the game is designed with the idea that everyone is there to have fun rather than screw the system.
Since you're arguing the spell would have to make a perception and/or spellcraft which the spell shouldn't autopass, that has implications. Firstly it nerfs the spell hard. Loads of players have set contingencies for when they're asleep or something gets the better of them, which by your logic should fail because since the spell doesn't make those checks it can't succeed. And since it's sorta the point of the spell to be able to recognize certain conditions regardless of the condition of the user, I have to disagree with you.
I get though you have a problem with the spell by passing something like invisibility, since one could phrase to inform the player of an invisible attacker. Would you prefer if the spell had a caster check, to oppose things like invisiblity on behalf of the caster? Then they can contingency what they want, but they have a chance of failure.
Also maybe it's the wrong type of spell(Evocation? Wierd for a spell that casts another spell of any type.), but otherwise I think it's fine as is.
I believe that the spell can know/discern things that the spellcaster couldn't (like a hidden enemy sneaking up on you). I also believe that the designers figured GMs and players wouldn't abuse that fact with things like "If X did/does Y, cast Z" and thus didn't bother to lay down a 100-page legal document describing the spell. This game relies on a trust system. Like most games, trust is implied.
It's assumed that players won't try to cheese the system with such obvious abuses. It's also assumed that GMs are smart enough to catch and stop such obvious abuses. As with anyone, players aren't always considerate of the fun of others, and GMs can be oblivious at times. That doesn't change the fact that the game is designed with the idea that everyone is there to have fun rather than screw the system.
+1
I agree with Ravingdork. You need Trust. You don't need a 100 page research paper on what the limitations of magic are.
This is a level six spell that can do absolutely nothing in the event that the circumstances are not met. This spell also consumes another spell in order to properly cast it, because on its own without another spell, Contingency does nothing.
The absolute purpose of this spell is to cast a spell in the event that the caster cannot or would not do so in the same regard. This is even what the word contingency means (see above). It is a plan for unforeseeable circumstances. "Unforeseeable" being an important word.
If you are EXTREMELY explicit in your description, you are now limited to the circumstances in which your spell is cast. If you are very vague, you may get accidental casting. All in all, this is NOT that powerful for a level 6 spell.
Could it be used for perfect divination of certain events? Yes. You would need to be very specific in your casting meaning you have pigeon holed the usage to only one specific event. This does not remotely seem too powerful or abusive to me.
Using the examples above, casting two level six spells in order to prevent one ambush from an invisible creature does not sound remotely powerful. In fact, this seems like a waste of a spell. I'd rather buy a Gem of True Seeing instead of possibly wasting a level six slot every single day in the event of invisible paranoia.
Using level six spells, you can put Geas on enemies or disintegrate them, but preventing an ambush using TWO spells sounds too much to you?
On the other hand, you do run into this limitation on the item.
A gem of seeing can be used for as many as 30 minutes a day, in increments of 5 minutes.
Very true! I still don't believe comparing a purchased item that does 30 minutes a day for each day after you purchase it versus casting two level six spells every single day shows that Contingency is too powerful.