Adjudicating Contingency

[Lapak]

Contingency (and crafted Contingent spells) are one of the big tools in a high-level spellcaster's arsenal. Many weaknesses or avenues of attack that aren't otherwise foreseen can potentially be prevented or mitigated by a Contingent effect, but I'm not entirely sure what it should and shouldn't be able to do. I have some feelings about it, but I want to see what others think. So, throwing the question out there for discussion:

The effect itself says that the conditions that trigger it have to be 'clear, though they can be general. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contingency.htm)' with the warning that the effect can fail if it is too vague or difficult. This basically tosses the question of what is and isn't a valid trigger into the DM's lap. So, what would you allow the spell to do in your campaign? Some possible issues to consider:

A. Can the trigger be expressed in game-mechanical terms, or must it be something that can be expressed in-character?

B. Can the trigger be based on something that is about to happen, or only something that has happened?

C. Is the trigger based on the perceptions or intent of someone other than the caster?

Some examples:

'When I am about to suffer a blow that would render me unconscious or dead'
This would run into B; can the spell work out that you're going to be hit, or only that you have been? If it can, can it determine whether you would be taken down?

'When I fail a Will or Fortitude saving throw'
This would be an example of A; this is perfectly clear by RAW and completely meaningless in-character.

'When someone on the Abyssal Plane speaks my name'
An example of C. It's dealing with a concrete, in-game, current fact, but... is there a range on this? Does a Contingent spell automatically have omniscient knowledge about everything that is happening throughout the multiverse, or is there a range or limitation on this effect?

'when I become the target of an attack or negative effect'
This (or some variation) comes up all the time when wizard-effectiveness debates arise, and it potentially hits all three of A, B and C. It's not obviously looking at the future, as the condition is about becoming the target of an attack, but what does that mean? How does the spell determine that the caster is the target of an attack before the caster is actually hit? Does it constantly mind-scan everyone in the universe for intent, or look at the future to determine whether a spell or missile or sword blow WOULD hit the caster if allowed? Also, 'attack or negative effect' is a pretty OOC phrasing; it is clear only if you're assuming that the spell operates on a meta-game level and is otherwise extremely vague.

Which of these themes or examples would you allow in your game? What's the best solution, in your opinion? (And it is opinions I'm looking for; I'd be very glad to know if there's a crystal-clear ruling by RAW on this kind of thing, but I'm also interested in what people think this kind of effect should allow.) Would the game be improved if it relied on triggers that had already happened, that the caster was aware of, phrased in in-character terms, or would this also cause problems?

[CigarPete]

I play it as the trigger has to be something my character knows, does or experiences, so no predicting the future, no intent, no game-mechanics and only in-character. Otherwise it get too cheesy and meta-gamey and pisses off the DM. Depending on what I am doing I generally set a couple possible triggers, I will speak a certain word or phrase, make a certain gesture or have a specific event happen, depending on what the spell I am placing in the contingency is.

[gbprime]

Contingency (and crafted Contingent spells)

A. Can the trigger be expressed in game-mechanical terms, or must it be something that can be expressed in-character?

Game mechanics are fine. I've never encountered a GM that wanted in-character conditions only. "When I have lost 75% of my hit points" is perfectly acceptable.


B. Can the trigger be based on something that is about to happen, or only something that has happened?

The contingency takes effect immediately AFTER the event. If you want it to take place before an event, then you have to make the trigger differently. Setting up a Death Ward to go off after you get hit with an Energy Drain does you no good, but setting up a Death Ward to go off after you say "Argyle Gargler" is fine, since talking takes no time and you can rattle out the command phrase right before you get blasted with what you believe to be an Energy Drain.


C. Is the trigger based on the perceptions or intent of someone other than the caster?

The trigger is based only on things that actually happen to the owner of the contingency. If you are fooled by an illusion, your contingency usually won't be.


Some examples:

'When I am about to suffer a blow that would render me unconscious or dead'
This would run into B; can the spell work out that you're going to be hit, or only that you have been? If it can, can it determine whether you would be taken down?

Doesn't work. The spell cannot tell when you are "about to" anything. It only goes off after something occurs.


'When I fail a Will or Fortitude saving throw'
This would be an example of A; this is perfectly clear by RAW and completely meaningless in-character.

Works fine.


'When someone on the Abyssal Plane speaks my name'
An example of C. It's dealing with a concrete, in-game, current fact, but... is there a range on this? Does a Contingent spell automatically have omniscient knowledge about everything that is happening throughout the multiverse, or is there a range or limitation on this effect?

Contingency has no exceptional sensory abilities. It cannot tell if the king snaps his fingers unless the person carrying the contingency can witness it. (Although, the Contingency cannot be blinded or deafened, unlike the bearer, so a verbal trigger would still work even if the bearer of the contingency has been deafened."


'when I become the target of an attack or negative effect'

Nope. The spell cannot determine this. "when you become affected by" is a better trigger.

Let's use an example of someone with 100 hit points well covered by Craft Contingent Spell...


When I am reduced to 50% or less of my hit points, Heal goes off.
When I am reduced to 10% or less of my hit points, Heal goes off.
When I am dead, Revivify goes off.
When I am affected by Revivify, Heal goes off.
When I say "Walla Walla Washington", Word of Recall goes off.


The list covered damaged, badly damaged, dead, and "get me outta here". But things can go wrong. For example, let's say the person has 52 HP remaining, and nothing has activated yet. (S)he is then hit by something big that does 70 HP of damage. The first four contingent conditions are all met at once. So two Heals are wasted, a Revivify fires off, and a third Heal then takes effect on the person.

If killed by Phantasmal Killer or Weird, however, the first two conditions are not activated, since hit points were not involved. Weird indeed. :smallbiggrin:

[KillianHawkeye]

I agree with CigarPete.

IMO, a contingency has to be triggered by something happening (rather than something about to happen), because that is what a contingency plan really is. "If there's a traffic jam on the highway, I will take the side roads instead" won't trigger unless a traffic jam occurs on the highway, for example.

[michaelmichael]

How about these?

1. You must state the criteria in terms of current conditions, not extrapolation of future events.

spec: No "about to"s but you might say instead, a weapon moving toward me less than 1 foot away, etc.

2. It has to be something that you would at least be capable of observing at the time. So it cannot be used to gain information you would not have other means of accessing.

spec:No "name spoken on another plane" business, or "I am within 10 miles of a town" or "mindblanked artifact X is buried here" or even "the npc is lying"

To this end contingency could be thwarted my both abjurations and illusions under at least some circumstances. One could imagine that each contingency has a scrying sensor on the subject responsible for noticing when conditions are met. If you want contingency to be more powerful, give the sensor more range and/or true seeing. A balancing approach would be to give it specific bonuses on spot,listen, search, and other information gathering skills.

Alternatively if you want an additional synergy you might allow point 1 to be gotten around if the subject also has an active foresight type effect that the sensor can "look" through.
:thog:

[KillianHawkeye]

I definitely don't think the contingency spell should be omniscient. I wouldn't allow a contingent see invisibility spell triggered by "an invisible creature comes within 30 feet of me," for example, but I would allow it to be triggered by "being attacked by something I can't see."

[gbprime]

1. You must state the criteria in terms of current conditions, not extrapolation of future events.

spec: No "about to"s but you might say instead, a weapon moving toward me less than 1 foot away, etc.

And this is exactly why contingency isn't the panacea some people make it out to be. "A weapon moving toward me less than 1 foot away" could be activated by a barber giving you a shave or a monk jabbing his finger toward you accusingly in an argument. :smallamused:

[Lapak]

And this is exactly why contingency isn't the panacea some people make it out to be. "A weapon moving toward me less than 1 foot away" could be activated by a barber giving you a shave or a monk jabbing his finger toward you accusingly in an argument. :smallamused:Heh. I suppose sheathing your OWN weapon could trigger it, come to think of it.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Heh, nice try, but not quite...

The key phrase here is:


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).

Being the target of an attack or negative effect certainly affects you. Thus, you may certainly use it as a clause. It's one of the reasons that Contingency IS that broken.

Having said that, you can use Celerity as an immediate action, during someone else's turn. After the first hit, you're gone anyways, without Contingency.

It's just that Contingency lets you get away *before* the first hit lands.

[jmelesky]

Being the target of an attack or negative effect certainly affects you. Thus, you may certainly use it as a clause. It's one of the reasons that Contingency IS that broken.

I'm not sure that being a target does affect you. If, for example, you're the target of a melee attack, and that attack fails to hit, in what way were you affected? Target of a spell, but it doesn't breach your SR? or you make your save?

[Kumori]

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).

This quote states when spell is cast when the triggering conditions are met. It has nothing to do with the trigger itself. Care to restate that, ShneekeyTheLost?

[Safety Sword]

And this is exactly why contingency isn't the panacea some people make it out to be. "A weapon moving toward me less than 1 foot away" could be activated by a barber giving you a shave or a monk jabbing his finger toward you accusingly in an argument. :smallamused:

Quite amusing to be able make your party wizard randomly teleport home every time he annoys you...

[NichG]

I think it helps if you consider that the defining aspect of Contingency is that its fast. In principle you could have a Contingency go off at any point where you could normally take an Immediate Action. That means that Contingency is so fast that it can do something between the moment you're hit by a Disintegrate and the moment you fall into bits because you failed the fort save. There are spells (Fortunate Fate, Delay Death) that trigger between when you take damage and when you die from that damage, so I'd rule that Contingency could do that as well.

As such, I'd allow contingencies such as 'the moment I begin to suffer any sort of injury from anything', for extra protection against surprise rounds and sneak attacks. In that case, a sword blow that would miss your AC wouldn't target it, but a sword blow that would hit you would trigger your teleport or whatever, leaving you having taken no real hitpoint damage from the attack but bearing a superficial bruise. It'd also trigger if you stubbed your toe, though, so you'd have to be careful.

I wouldn't allow contingency access to any information the caster doesn't have, however.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

This quote states when spell is cast when the triggering conditions are met. It has nothing to do with the trigger itself. Care to restate that, ShneekeyTheLost?

Sure, makes it easier, in point of fact.


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.

The ONLY limiting factor is that the conditions need to be clear.

So, being the target of an attack or negative effect is a very clear condition. Done.

There *ARE* no other limits on the spell. Period. Omnipotence be damned, it will trigger however you want it to, period.

The only 'limits' on the spell is that it must be fairly straightforward. This is to preclude the lawyer-like multi-page contracts some used to use for Wishes in 2e.

Any other limit is a pre-conception, brought about by a sense of fair play, but not inherent in the rules.

[hewhosaysfish]

If killed by Phantasmal Killer or Weird, however, the first two conditions are not activated, since hit points were not involved. Weird indeed. :smallbiggrin:

Nitpick: The rules do state that a dead person is at -10hp, regardless of how they died. So the contingent heals would go off.

[gbprime]

Nitpick: The rules do state that a dead person is at -10hp, regardless of how they died. So the contingent heals would go off.

Actually, no they don't. There's an OR in there, not an AND.


Dead: The character’s hit points are reduced to –10, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect.

Emphasis mine.

[Douglas]

In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how she died, has -10 hit points. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#deathAttacks)

[Lapak]

The only 'limits' on the spell is that it must be fairly straightforward. This is to preclude the lawyer-like multi-page contracts some used to use for Wishes in 2e.

Any other limit is a pre-conception, brought about by a sense of fair play, but not inherent in the rules.Which understanding is why I posted this thread. There are plenty of major holes in the RAW and this is one of them: to pick one obvious problem, Contingency gets a second life as an unblockable divination under this ruling. That's pretty clearly not part of the intent, and equally clearly works if you assume that the spell just somehow knows the entire future and current state of the universe plus the intent of everyone in it. (And not only does it not seem like the intended use of the spell, it seems astoundingly overpowered for 6th level.)

So I'm looking more for how people would actually run the spell in-game, though I do thank you for your input on the proper interpretation of the RAW as well. That said, if you'd run it exactly that way, then that's useful for me to know! Would you allow some or all of the example triggers I suggested in your own game?

[Veyr]

That's pretty clearly not part of the intent
[Citation Needed]

Please post a link to a quote of the developer stating that they did not intend this, or please stop asserting things you have no direct knowledge or evidence for.

[KillianHawkeye]

Y'know, it is possible sometimes to infer something about a body of work without directly contacting the creator of said work.

Just sayin'.... :smallsigh:

[Veyr]

Y'know, it is possible sometimes to infer something about a body of work without directly contacting the creator of said work.

Just sayin'.... :smallsigh:
And that is an inference and therefore not "pretty clearly". I have yet to see RAI brought up in any discussion on this entire forum where it wasn't a blatant Appeal to Authority and attempt to trump up one's opinion as superior to others' on the basis that it is somehow "clearly" "intended". It detracts from the debate and insults other posters.

[NichG]

And that is an inference and therefore not "pretty clearly". I have yet to see RAI brought up in any discussion on this entire forum where it wasn't a blatant Appeal to Authority and attempt to trump up one's opinion as superior to others' on the basis that it is somehow "clearly" "intended". It detracts from the debate and insults other posters.

Given that the original poster is asking how people run it in their games, and is interested in how to run it so that its reasonable in his game, this seems like a total strawman. RAW was never the issue in this thread, and trying to force the OP to justify how they run their game based on an Appeal to RAW is just as invalid as using an Appeal to Authority to argue what RAW 'really means'.

[Veyr]

I never said he had to play by RAW: you are making a strawman, actually, by putting words in my mouth. I said that RAI means nothing without evidence to back it up, and without such has no place in any discussion. Because despite the words he uses, the only accurate statement he can make is "I think the intent was" — which is all well and good, but doesn't actually mean anything to anyone else. It's a statement of opinion, which we can either agree or disagree with but cannot really discuss unless he lays out reasons why. However, when he says that this "is pretty clearly the intent", he is attempting, however subconsciously, to remove the option of disagreement because he's couched his opinion in the form of a statement of fact, and attempts to elevate his opinion above that of others by putting the weight of the developers behind him.

I mean, if he had said "You're wrong, because clearly the designers would have agreed with me," would you accept that statement? Because that is effectively identical to what he actually said. Sure, it doesn't come off as badly the way he phrased it, but the actual meaning of the two sentences is the the same. It's simply rude, and I am calling him on it.

Moreover, there are innumerable ways he could defend his position without this blatant appeal to authority. If he had said "I would rule that it doesn't work that way because that's hideously imbalanced", I'd point out that this is a houserule but I would agree with him — it is hideously imbalanced. If he had said "I would rule that it doesn't work that way because it makes no sense for a 5th level Evocation spell to have that kind of omniscient Divinatory effect", I would also agree with him, because that doesn't make sense.

But those are statements of opinion defended with reasons, and invites a healthy discussion. Stating "I would rule against it because clearly the designers didn't intend it that way" is an opinion stated as fact, and attempts to shut down any discussion at all.

[Lapak]

So far, we've had opinions for and against every factor I mentioned to begin with. Does anyone else have thoughts about the matter, or other complications I haven't considered that they'd like to add?

[Infernalbargain]

<stuff about RAI>

To be honest, your sounding like overzealous positivists (that's a bad thing). Sometimes it is quite obvious what the RAI is without official statements. For example, have you ever enforced monks getting -4 to unarmed attacks because they aren't proficient? To my knowledge there hasn't been any official responses on this, thus any argument going against it is pure speculation as to the intent of the writers. However, what you must ask yourself is "is it reasonable?" Is it reasonable to assume that one of the monk's large class feature is secretly nerfed because the developers wanted it that way? Or is it more reasonable to assume that the developers intended the classes to be proficient at their forte?

This leads us to the question at hand. Is it reasonable to assume that the developers wanted contingency to be an "oh ****" button? Or is it more reasonable to assume that the developers intended contingency to be the all-seeing eye?

[Forged Fury]

This leads us to the question at hand. Is it reasonable to assume that the developers wanted contingency to be an "oh ****" button? Or is it more reasonable to assume that the developers intended contingency to be the all-seeing eye?
I'm guessing they pretty clearly foresaw the potential problems with Contingeny which is why they specifically highlighted the DM fiat clause:
The conditions needed to bring the spell into effect must be clear, although they can be general.
The only one (in-game) that can determine what is "clear" and "general" is the DM. It seems there is a preponderence of evidence that they usually do that with spells that can be easily abused (e.g. wish, miracle, etc).

[Infernalbargain]

I'm guessing they pretty clearly foresaw the potential problems with Contingeny which is why they specifically highlighted the DM fiat clause:
The only one (in-game) that can determine what is "clear" and "general" is the DM. It seems there is a preponderence of evidence that they usually do that with spells that can be easily abused (e.g. wish, miracle, etc).

Which illustrates my point. Is it reasonable to assume that it was put in to limit contingency? Or is it more reasonable to assume that it was put in to give the players the free reign of generality?

[DonEsteban]

Warning: The following post expresses an opinion.

I don't give a damn about what the developers may or may not have been intended. I'm only interested in a rule interpretation that doesn't ruin the game. It's one of those rules that clearly require the best judgement of a DM. As such there will never be a definite answer to your questions.


A. Can the trigger be expressed in game-mechanical terms, or must it be something that can be expressed in-character?
I think it would have to be expressed in character, but many game-mechanical terms can be expressed in character. "Going below 10% of max. HP" is certainly okay, "failing a saving throw" is pushing it. There can be all sorts of events that require a save, not just spells...


B. Can the trigger be based on something that is about to happen, or only something that has happened?Strictly speaking the spell cannot look into the future, but "a moment before I'm hit by a weapon" should be okay. I'd say that it's much like the condition for a ready action in that respect.


C. Is the trigger based on the perceptions or intent of someone other than the caster?Intent is clearly beyond the capabilites. I'd say it must be something "physical" that the user could perceive, but a certain degree of freedom is in order. For example "If I'm attacked from behind" should be fine, but to allow "if someone speaks my name in the 333rd layer of the abyss" would be quite ridiculous. But what about "if I'm attacked by an invisible creature" or even "if an invisible creature is near me"? It's a matter of taste, I'd say. After all there's evidence of other spells like glyph of warding that seem to have supernatural senses.