We had this come up in a session last night against an invisible BBEG spellcaster, and I'm looking to see if there is something we're missing here, or if this really is just an ambiguous rule.
Our party Fighter, whom was Hasted, moved up to the BBEG Spellcaster with Flanking, activated Disruptive Stance, and used Improved Knockdown to debilitate, damage, and debuff the BBEG (since it was a Critical with a Fearsome weapon).
However, the BBEG had a Contingency in place to use Dimension Door if they got low enough health, which triggered after the Improved Knockdown took place.
Here's what Contingency says:
You prepare a spell that will trigger later. While casting contingency, you also cast another spell of 4th level or lower with a casting time of no more than 3 actions. This companion spell must be one that can affect you. You must make any decisions for the spell when you cast contingency, such as choosing a damage type for resist energy. During the casting, choose a trigger under which the spell will be cast, using the same restrictions as for the trigger of a Ready action. Once contingency is cast, you can cause the companion spell to come into effect as a reaction with that trigger. It affects only you, even if it would affect more creatures. If you define complicated conditions, as determined by the GM, the trigger might fail. If you cast contingency again, the newer casting supersedes the older.
Initially, the GM argued that because the spell coming into effect doesn't have any spellcasting traits or isn't an action of some sort that the BBEG could just use their Reaction and get away. However, I followed up by saying that, because the spell still has physical manifestations, and requires effort on the BBEG's part (hence represented by the reaction), that it would still require the components to function, which means it would still trigger. The GM eventually agreed, but disputed that because it would be a Verbal at-most, or a Concentrate trait effect, that only the Fighter in Disruptive Stance would be able to affect them.
Thankfully, this gives the BBEG the death knell, but I'm still wondering if we ran that situation incorrectly, or if there's some other information we're missing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spell effect can be triggered as a reaction when the trigger conditions are met by RAW.
One note on the effect being triggered: "You must make any decisions for the spell when you cast contingency..." The destination for dimension door must be chosen ahead of time and cannot be selected when the contingency is triggered. Effectively, the spell is "pre-cast" and in a "held" state with contingency, rather than having the spell cast during the reaction.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Contingency requires absolutely no input from the caster as long as they have the reaction. It could be "I am knocked unconscious" as a trigger and it would still activate, even though they are unable to act. A Stone to Flesh spell prepared to cast after becoming Petrified is a completely valid use of Contingency as well.
And regardless, NPCs don't follow Player rules. Just because something works a certain way for PCs doesn't mean it has to work that way for enemies.
What's so wrong with the BBEG getting away with clever planning? That gives the party a chance to prepare for that eventuality next time, such as by casting a Dimensional Anchor on him so the contingency spell fails, which is a much better victory in my opinion.
NPCs don't follow Player rules. Just because something works a certain way for PCs doesn't mean it has to work that way for enemies.
What's so wrong with the BBEG getting away with clever planning? That gives the party a chance to prepare for that eventuality next time, such as by casting a Dimensional Anchor on him so the contingency spell fails, which is a much better victory in my opinion.
I would agree with this if it was some unique NPC ability, as monster/NPC abilities don't need to follow PC rules. But when it's literally the same exact rules, abilities, and mechanics that I use, I would call BS that an NPC can get away with it, but I could not. A GM doing that is basically railroading the adventure in a way that myself and our fellow players would be upset with.
As for it being a problem for them getting away, the group was basically out of time at that point. If the BBEG got away, we would have essentially failed our quest and it would've been game over.
As far as I can tell your GM was correct. The spell is cast beforehand, which is where its manipulate and concentrate actions come into play. After that it's just delayed until it goes off. I'm not sure why the actions would need to happen again in that case, and like people pointed out, Contingency does allow for spells to trigger when the character themself is otherwise incapable of acting. The required reaction is there primarily as a balancing factor, because otherwise Contingency would effectively grant someone two reactions whenever its used, which is a potent ability that not many classes gain access to.
I was also going to point out that the reaction is abalancing factor against triggering multiple contingencies at once, each playing off the previous' activation, but those kinds of spells can only be used one at a time so eh.
I argued that it would require effort from the spellcaster's part because the effect being called is done as a Reaction. Even if it's something as simple as concentration, it would still trigger from things like Disruptive Stance.
As for it being a balancing factor, there are better ways to do this without using contradictory rules. Also, the argument that the Contingency can be brought into effect without activity from the spellcaster is complete BS. If a Reaction is required, and you are Paralyzed/Petrified, you cease being able to act, which includes Reactions. Same with Dying, meaning you couldn't, for example, Contingency a Heal spell on you when you receive the Dying Condition in an attempt to both stave off Dying without allies spending actions, or to avoid becoming Wounded.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing about contingency confers any traits to the reaction. The text even goes out of its way to say the spell "comes into effect" rather than "cast" so you avoid the baggage of the triggered spell's traits.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a Reaction is required, and you are Paralyzed/Petrified, you cease being able to act, which includes Reactions. Same with Dying, meaning you couldn't, for example, Contingency a Heal spell on you when you receive the Dying Condition in an attempt to both stave off Dying without allies spending actions, or to avoid becoming Wounded.
That's absolutely not true. If a reaction or free action has a trigger, you can use it when that trigger is met, regardless of whether you can act or not. For example, Core Rejuvination, Reanimating Spark, and Revivification Protocal.
Now if you can't act to take out the actions described in the reaction, like Striking, that's completely different. But Contingency doesn't have you do anything, it just produces the effect of the spell you had already cast.
The BS here is that the party was on a timer and the boss had an ability to automatically exit the fight alive upon reaching a threshold, and that there was no thought put into what would happen if they got away other than "The PCs lose". There's absolutely no way for the PCs to know about the contingency and take action before it has already occurred, so the GM should account for that. The boss could be so thoroughly injured that their evil plans are delayed, giving the party more time to regroup and plan their second assault, or something goes horribly wrong with the teleportation and they rip open a portal, revealing the real boss. Never should a GM have a secret "Gotcha" built into their scenario that makes their players question why they even tried to fight in the first place.
Nothing about contingency confers any traits to the reaction. The text even goes out of its way to say the spell "comes into effect" rather than "cast" so you avoid the baggage of the triggered spell's traits.
That was my initial thought process too, but the fact that it's a Reaction means it should require some effort on the spellcaster's behalf to call into effect. Suggesting that it takes no action on the spellcaster's part, when the Contingency requires a Reaction to activate, is more BS than stating it requires components to come into effect. And really, if it requires some sort of effort to bring forth the effect, what type of effort would that be? Maybe not the spellcasting traits themselves, but still some sort of mental action, like concentrate. Hence why I argued it would still be some sort of concentration involved, which would trigger via Disruptive Stance.
That's absolutely not true. If a reaction or free action has a trigger, you can use it when that trigger is met, regardless of whether you can act or not. For example, Core Rejuvination, Reanimating Spark, and Revivification Protocal.
Now if you can't act to take out the actions described in the reaction, like Striking, that's completely different. But Contingency doesn't have you do anything, it just produces the effect of the spell you had already cast.
The BS here is that the party was on a timer and the boss had an ability to automatically exit the fight alive upon reaching a threshold, and that there was no thought put into what would happen if they got away other than "The PCs lose". There's absolutely no way for the PCs to know about the contingency and take action before it has already occurred, so the GM should account for that. The boss could be so thoroughly injured that their evil plans are delayed, giving the party more time to regroup and plan their second assault, or something goes horribly wrong with the teleportation and they rip open a portal, revealing the real boss. Never should a GM have a secret "Gotcha" built into their scenario that makes their players question why they even tried to fight in the first place.
Those are pretty inconsistent, given that the first one and third ones require a Free Action, and the second one doesn't. I suspect those should be grounds for errata, given that RAW, you can't activate the Free Action ones, since you can't take actions while Unconscious/Dying. Even if we want to take the obvious route of them being designed to function to be used while under those conditions, those are more specific to their prospects, and aren't general rules regarding Free Actions/Reactions, meaning your argument still doesn't hold any water here.
Wait, you're saying Contingency behaves like any form of Reaction or Free Action, and lets you completely ignore general rule effects from things like being Stunned, Paralyzed, Unconscious, Petrified, etc. stating you can't act or take/perform actions? While I can understand the comparison being made, Contingency isn't specific enough compared to your previous suggestions to let you circumvent those issues with its Reaction it provides, certainly not compared to those effects, or even the likes of Determination from Fighters. It's open-ended enough that you could do literally anything with Contingency: For example, you could have a Haste spell prepared to be cast on you if you either enter combat, or it's an upcoming turn in combat. Should that work with being Stunned/Paralyzed/etc.? I'd argue no. And if it doesn't work in that situation, then the other situations (such as preparing a Contingency specifically for those conditions or debuffs) shouldn't change it to work, either.
Contingency still requires a Reaction. If you can't use a Reaction (either because you're Stunned, Paralyzed, etc., or some other spell effect prevents you from performing Reactions), you can't use Contingency. It's that simple. Saying that "Contingency doesn't have you do anything" is complete BS and contradictory to the spell description saying you need a Reaction to activate it. Even with suggesting that it can be used, it's no different than any other Reaction in the game: It lacks specifics that let you circumvent abilities that deny you to use Reactions, nor would it work with other Reactions in a given round. Which isn't surprising, given that, as you guys stated, it gives an effective 2 Reactions for a round with no feats or abilities expressly giving you that.
How can it be the GM's "Gotcha!" scenario when this encounter came directly from an adventure path? Yeah, no, I don't buy your disingenuous argument of the GM pulling a "Gotcha!" when you don't even know the full story behind the encounter, which I didn't tell to avoid bringing up spoilers.
As for me boiling it down to "The PCs lose," it's the simplified version. It's probably more extravagant and contrived than that. But given the consequence of the BBEG escaping, and that we had burned up time prior to that confrontation to better handle the other parts of the module, we wouldn't have had an opportunity to recompense or plan a way to foil the BBEG in time before potential reinforcements would've made that a losing battle.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing about contingency confers any traits to the reaction. The text even goes out of its way to say the spell "comes into effect" rather than "cast" so you avoid the baggage of the triggered spell's traits.That was my initial thought process too, but the fact that it's a Reaction means it should require some effort on the spellcaster's behalf to call into effect. Suggesting that it takes no action on the spellcaster's part, when the Contingency requires a Reaction to activate, is more BS than stating it requires components to come into effect. And really, if it requires some sort of effort to bring forth the effect, what type of effort would that be? Maybe not the spellcasting traits themselves, but still some sort of mental action, like concentrate. Hence why I argued it would still be some sort of concentration involved, which would trigger via Disruptive Stance.
Houserule it all you like, it remains a houserule. Nothing in the rules states that the reaction has any traits. Therefore, it has none. This isn't even a case of ambiguous wording or a weird interaction.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CR 622, Gaining and Losing Actions last paragraph covers this, which is where I got what I posted above. "When you can't act, you're unable to take any actions at all." CR 461, reactions are actions
Cordell, your conviction that Contingency can be used even when the caster cannot act is a holdover from previous systems, much like that one guy's conviction that a cantrip (which he probably still thinks of as "zero level spells") like Light shouldn't be able to counteract or suppress Darkness from "real" spells. Contingency does not say it breaks the rules about not being able to act. If I am wrong, what is your source?
So those three feats I linked are absolutely useless then?
Also Reanimating Spark should need a free action like the other two, it's just a typo that it's not there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You definitely have to activate a contingency with the way the spell is written.
But I don't see anything giving it the concentration or manipulate traits as the OP suggests either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems abundantly clear that the Contingency spell grants use of a reaction which does not appear to have any traits of which to speak. Thus, it does not require concentration (mind, neither does the Lay on Hands spell) and does not require manipulation (such as for example a Shield cantrip). As a reaction, it clearly requires some effort from the caster which cannot be easily repeated multiple times in a short span, however whatever effort it does require precludes the necessity of a free hand or mental discipline. For example, Attack of Opportunity and Arrest a Fall are other such examples of a reaction without any notable traits.
On the other hand, the status "Cannot Act" means that a character is unable to use Actions, Reactions, or Free Actions, yet the linked feats are clearly intended to function despite this. This does not bother me unduly since it's at least relatively obvious how the feats are intended to work, even if they technically can't.
I propose that the reaction is a purely mental action which does not require focused mental effort (there are a few spells, such as Invisibility, which do not have the concentrate trait, so I'm not terribly concerned with this being a thing).
It seems abundantly clear that the Contingency spell grants use of a reaction which does not appear to have any traits of which to speak. Thus, it does not require concentration (mind, neither does the Lay on Hands spell) and does not require manipulation (such as for example a Shield cantrip). As a reaction, it clearly requires some effort from the caster which cannot be easily repeated multiple times in a short span, however whatever effort it does require precludes the necessity of a free hand or mental discipline. For example, Attack of Opportunity and Arrest a Fall are other such examples of a reaction without any notable traits.
On the other hand, the status "Cannot Act" means that a character is unable to use Actions, Reactions, or Free Actions, yet the linked feats are clearly intended to function despite this. This does not bother me unduly since it's at least relatively obvious how the feats are intended to work, even if they technically can't.
I propose that the reaction is a purely mental action which does not require focused mental effort (there are a few spells, such as Invisibility, which do not have the concentrate trait, so I'm not terribly concerned with this being a thing).
In regards to Attacks of Opportunity, you need as many limbs available to Strike with, meaning depending on which weapon you use determines how many hands you need. With Arrest a Fall, while a Critical Success does not require a free hand, a normal Success does, and translates to a Failure if one isn't available with that result, meaning that, for the most part, a hand can be (and usually is) most certainly required. Does it have traits? No. But implied requirements, most definitely.
At this point, I do concede that we ran the spell wrong, though, because it seems a little jank that a Reaction like Contingency can get disrupted by an AoO. That being said, it would go too far back in time to try and rectify it without having too much metagame knowledge. In addition, I guarantee that it would be a TPK if we failed, given that we would be fighting everything in the settlement against us.
In regards to Attacks of Opportunity, you need as many limbs available to Strike with, meaning depending on which weapon you use determines how many hands you need. With Arrest a Fall, while a Critical Success does not require a free hand, a normal Success does, and translates to a Failure if one isn't available with that result, meaning that, for the most part, a hand can be (and usually is) most certainly required. Does it have traits? No. But implied requirements, most definitely.It seems abundantly clear that the Contingency spell grants use of a reaction which does not appear to have any traits of which to speak. Thus, it does not require concentration (mind, neither does the Lay on Hands spell) and does not require manipulation (such as for example a Shield cantrip). As a reaction, it clearly requires some effort from the caster which cannot be easily repeated multiple times in a short span, however whatever effort it does require precludes the necessity of a free hand or mental discipline. For example, Attack of Opportunity and Arrest a Fall are other such examples of a reaction without any notable traits.
On the other hand, the status "Cannot Act" means that a character is unable to use Actions, Reactions, or Free Actions, yet the linked feats are clearly intended to function despite this. This does not bother me unduly since it's at least relatively obvious how the feats are intended to work, even if they technically can't.
I propose that the reaction is a purely mental action which does not require focused mental effort (there are a few spells, such as Invisibility, which do not have the concentrate trait, so I'm not terribly concerned with this being a thing).
You make valid objections to my examples, but I wanted to clarify that Arrest a Fall is the reaction for creatures with a fly speed. Grab an Edge, which fits your description, does carry the manipulate trait and so both explicitly and implicitly requires at least one hand to use.