Contingent Resurrection VS Celerity + Greater Dispel.

[D4rkh0rus]

Basically, just a question from a session I had in which My character died.
This basically arises from the fact that the DM pretty much decided that my character would be turned into a construct and become an NPC enemy to the party (effectively perma death).

Now, this ended in a discussion with him over rulings and stuff, And since he's the DM, guess who won. Anyways. I just want to know your opinions on the matter.

Now, to get into context, the party is optimized, with two characters (including mine) being heavily optimized

My character, an initiate of mystra DMM persister got placed inside a room wide Anti-Magic Field where he had to surpass a CL check of 30+ (at char lvl 14) to keep his persistents.

anyways, He had a Contingent Resurrection on himself (Set to activate whenever the body is dead), a hefty price but at least I ensured he didn't die to random chance (or so I thought). He also had a word of recall set in an altar in what would be the party's base.

Inside the AMF he gets hit for over 300 damage in 1 go, pretty much auto dies, ok. the boss monster (a crystalline golem I believe) is destroying the party, they decided to flee. Being unable to pick up the corpse due to said golem apparently having combat reflexes and thus triggering AoO like crazy) and being unable to teleport due to the AMF (pretty much it was a 50ft radius more or less).

Anyways. the party moves on, My character would resurrect as soon as the AMF effect ends or he is moved out. But the DM tells me that my character is completely dispelled and then would be turned into a construct.

So here is where the whole debate begins. I tell him that I have a contingent resurrection on me. To dispel everything one would have to either take me out of the AMF or end it, but the second that happens the contingency triggers and I get resurrected.
So the DM decided to say that whatever caster is dispelling me uses celerity as soon as it sees the contingency trigger, thus effectively dispelling it before it can trigger and I stay dead.

Can this be interpreted in this way, or is there some fatal flaw at hand?

I don't know, but then I'm just saying, Ok. DM just wants to kill off my character, but he denies willingly wanting to permanently kill off my character under the pretense that the party can still rescue him.
Considering that there is a large golem that apparently heals itself and shoots lasers inside an anti-magic field, also adding the fact that this is the second encounter like this on the same day and that the party is pretty much crippled (since my character was more or less the healbot-rezbot of the party and both the psion and casters are running low on spells). They are also given an (unnanounced) Time limit (which would be the time it takes to move him out of the place and begin the process). Which from the looks of it is less than 4 hours.

anyways, thanks for reading. Would like some input on the situation.

[Crake]

There WOULD be a way to pull it off, and that would be to use a selective AMF, allowing the caster to dispel you while you're still affected by it. However, if the DM starts bringing selective AMFs into the game, then I'd say you're well within your right to do the same in the future, and that **** is messed up, lemme tell you.

Using celerity when the contingency triggers, no, just... no. It's not like some caster is taking the time to cast them, and there's no way for him to identify the fact that they're in place due to the AMF, and of course, as soon as the AMF is gone, you just instantly resurrect and teleport. There's just no time for a celerity to achieve anything. You're either inside the AMF, not able to be dispelled, or you're outside and you get teleported home and ressed.

Remind your DM that you invested quite a significant chunk of cash into those contingencies, and that him just handwaving them like that is pretty unacceptable.

[slade88green]

I would say no, the celerity should not have worked fast enough to let the caster dispel your contingency. Both work as immediate actions so the caster could indeed cast celerity while your contingency triggered wisking you away. You DM is railroading you.

[D4rkh0rus]

Is there any firm points backed by the rules on this subject?

[Crake]

I would say no, the celerity should not have worked fast enough to let the caster dispel your contingency. Both work as immediate actions so the caster could indeed cast celerity while your contingency triggered wisking you away. You DM is railroading you.

The contingency isn't even an action.


Is there any firm points backed by the rules on this subject?

Not quite, but based on your DM's points, he said that the caster recognised the contingencies going off, which is not how they function. The contingencies don't have any outward signs of going off, they just happen. The spell has been cast, it's just waiting to be triggered. It's not like a spellcaster who needs to spend time, and provide somatic and verbal components, there's no indication that magic is there until the effect is done, at which point it's too late. There is no time for a celerity, since there is no time to cast. One moment you're there and dead, the next moment you're just gone.

[Werephilosopher]

"Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action."

Emphasis mine. It takes some time and effort to make an immediate action, and there is no time nor effort in a contingencied spell.

[Renen]

Heck, when the DM amended the BBEG's actions by adding celerity AFTER you told him that you can survive by being contingencied away, you shoulda called bull****. If the monster doesnt do it he cant just say "Oh, since you have contingencies then he would totally celerity".
Then, as others say your contingencies are setup in a such a way that he either cant use magic on you, or he can but you are now gone.
Short of a deity coming in and incinerating you inside the AMF you should be OK.

[Khedrac]

I disagree with the DM's ruling, but it *might* actually be the correct end result!

It depends on the wording of your Contingent Ressurrection - if it is "on death" or similar then it won't fire - it's suppressed while the triggering event happens (by the AMF). Once your body is out of the AMF then it is already dead, so anything that happens when you "die", "are killed" or similar won't be triggered. If the wording was "if I am dead then..." it should work fine.

So, I strongly suspect that your contingent ressurection should not have fired, but I agree that the stated reasons why not were invalid.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The whole thing sounds like a case of "rocks fall, you die", with the DM trying to justify it with fancy rules interpretation instead of coming out and saying it to your face.

"Whatever caster dispels you"? From your explanation there wasn't even a caster present, and even if there was there were no dispel checks rolled. That aside, you can't dispel a contingent spell when it's already triggered anyway.
AoO's like crazy? Even with Combat Reflexes your AoO's are limited to 1 per trigger event and a maximum of dex mod/round, and golems are kind of notorious for having low dex. I'd also be interested to know how that golem does 300 damage/hit.

I'd ask him to just tell you if he wants your character out of the game and why instead of resorting to that kind of ****. Because if that's his DM style you can basically kiss the rules goodbye and just freeform RP the whole thing instead of using cumbersome rules he ignores anyway.

[D4rkh0rus]

Not quite, but based on your DM's points, he said that the caster recognised the contingencies going off, which is not how they function. The contingencies don't have any outward signs of going off, they just happen. The spell has been cast, it's just waiting to be triggered. It's not like a spellcaster who needs to spend time, and provide somatic and verbal components, there's no indication that magic is there until the effect is done, at which point it's too late. There is no time for a celerity, since there is no time to cast. One moment you're there and dead, the next moment you're just gone.

thanks, that helps.


It depends on the wording of your Contingent Ressurrection - if it is "on death" or similar then it won't fire - it's suppressed while the triggering event happens (by the AMF). Once your body is out of the AMF then it is already dead, so anything that happens when you "die", "are killed" or similar won't be triggered. If the wording was "if I am dead then..." it should work fine.

The wording was, and I quote "Should I find myself Dead, activate this contingency" From What I am understanding, if I die, it should trigger non-stop until A - The body becomes Un-resurrectable or B - The Body is stopped being affected by the AMF, in which case it would resurrect me.



The whole thing sounds like a case of "rocks fall, you die", with the DM trying to justify it with fancy rules interpretation instead of coming out and saying it to your face.
Mhmm, he denies wanting to kill off my character. I've no problem if he feels its too powerful for the party, but at least he should tell me "your character is too powerful so im killing it" instead of evading.


"Whatever caster dispels you"? From your explanation there wasn't even a caster present, and even if there was there were no dispel checks rolled. That aside, you can't dispel a contingent spell when it's already triggered anyway.
AoO's like crazy? Even with Combat Reflexes your AoO's are limited to 1 per trigger event and a maximum of dex mod/round, and golems are kind of notorious for having low dex. I'd also be interested to know how that golem does 300 damage/hit.

Apparently there was a caster (who cast the AMF, we were aware of that) and apparently it rolled a 38 on the dispel check and that is the one that did all of this, I say "whatever caster" Cuz for now, no one really knows who or what he is. hes able to cast 9th lvl spells though, like pretty much every other caster we've encountered.

[Khedrac]

The wording was, and I quote "Should I find myself Dead, activate this contingency" From What I am understanding, if I die, it should trigger non-stop until A - The body becomes Un-resurrectable or B - The Body is stopped being affected by the AMF, in which case it would resurrect me.
Nice wording, I don't have a problem with it so I withdraw my earlier comment.

Note: for the very picky - "should I find myself dead" could be argued as to never come true as if dead you cannot find yourself in a given state (though you would presumably be a petitioner so perhaps you do find yourself dead).

Anyway as I said, picky though I am, I would not quibble with your wording so, for what it's worth, I think you should be resurrected.

[kellbyb]

Mhmm, he denies wanting to kill off my character. I've no problem if he feels its too powerful for the party, but at least he should tell me "your character is too powerful so im killing it" instead of evading..

I suggest tying him up and hitting him with the DMG until he tells the truth.

Nah, that's a bit severe. Still, he's blatantly lying considering what he's pulled on you.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Apparently there was a caster (who cast the AMF, we were aware of that) and apparently it rolled a 38 on the dispel check and that is the one that did all of this, I say "whatever caster" Cuz for now, no one really knows who or what he is. hes able to cast 9th lvl spells though, like pretty much every other caster we've encountered.

Well i'd be interested then how he got a 50ft AMF. And how he got his AMF to dispel anything (AMF just suppresses).
Even if he managed to cast a dispel that somehow works in AMF he'd need to roll a seperate dispel check for every spell on you. Since he apparently wasn't even aware of your contingencies until you mentioned them i find it hard to believe that that actually happened.

He may honestly not want to kill you off, but from the picture your descriptions paint it sounds incredibly fishy to me.

Still, continuing to argue with your DM isn't really likely to accomplish anything good. You challenged his ruling, he upheld it, that's kind of it. No use beating a dead horse further.
At this point, if you like the campaign and enjoy playing with your group i'd just make a new character and watch what kind of plot twist comes out of the whole thing. If he's so adamant on your cleric dying and being turned he probably thinks it's something good. He could be right (but you'd know that better than me).

Or you know, do the whole quitting and stomping out thing, if you think the game is no longer worth it. But that's a decision you'll have to make for yourself.

[Zubrowka74]

I have to concure this looks pretty much like rock falling, though the way you're describing the DM's word he might have a good intention and save your contingency because, for exemple, there's an easier way of getting you back and he wants the party to find it.

I'd clarify this OOC. But if indeed he wants to remove your PC, he should at least tell you. As a DM I would try to find a compromise.

[Emperor Tippy]

If you actually have a Contingent Resurrection via Craft Contingency then Dispel can only suppress it for 1d4 rounds. It is treated as a magic item.

Celerity does beat Contingency, at least if the Celerity is done in response to the Contingency triggering and not the other way around. Assuming that the Celerity user is not flatfooted at least.

That being said, your DM changed the NPC's actions after you reminded him of your counter. That is not kosher. Especially if the NPC couldn't reasonably be expected to know that your counter existed.

[sleepyphoenixx]

If you actually have a Contingent Resurrection via Craft Contingency then Dispel can only suppress it for 1d4 rounds. It is treated as a magic item.


According to Complete Arcane contingent spells are treated as active spell effects for the purpose of dispelling.

[Werephilosopher]

Well i'd be interested then how he got a 50ft AMF. And how he got his AMF to dispel anything (AMF just suppresses).

Also, how the caster was able to stand in the center of the emanation without being seen. Or if they weren't in the center, how they were able to break the rules of how AMFs work.

[Rubik]

Also, how the caster was able to stand in the center of the emanation without being seen. Or if they weren't in the center, how they were able to break the rules of how AMFs work.Could've been a wizard X/arcane archer Y. Or used several traps of AMF. Or used level-reduction surgery shenanigans to push AMF to level 3 or below and added it to a spell-storing arrow. Or done any number of other things.

[Segev]

Why not just let you res, shove you back in the AMF, then kill you again?

[Rubik]

Why not just let you res, shove you back in the AMF, then kill you again?Because Contingent Word of Recall, to be activated simultaneously to the Contingent Resurrection.

[Emperor Tippy]

According to Complete Arcane contingent spells are treated as active spell effects for the purpose of dispelling.

You would be correct, forgot that we houseruled that a few years ago.

[kellbyb]

You would be correct, forgot that we houseruled that a few years ago.

I agree, letting Dispel Magic destroy stuff that takes gold to craft is beyond stupid.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I agree, letting Dispel Magic destroy stuff that takes gold to craft is beyond stupid.

Dispels are one of the very few things that balance Craft Contingent Spell at least a little. If you're worried about it invest in dispel protection (which you should anyway).
Gold is like XP, there's always more coming in. Spending gold and/or XP shouldn't be a guarantee that something can't be lost or taken from you.

At least that's my view on the issue. YMMV and i think this argument strays a little far from the original topic, so lets agree to disagree (or move to a new thread if you feel there's more to be said on this).

[Rubik]

What happens if a caster with Initiate of Mystra and the ability to cast spells as supernatural abilities (such as a cleric with levels in dweomerkeeper) crafts a Contingent Spell as a Supernatural ability, which is then exposed to dispelling or an AMF/dead magic zone?

Heck, what happens to any magic item crafted as such?

[Mr Adventurer]

What happens if a caster with Initiate of Mystra and the ability to cast spells as supernatural abilities (such as a cleric with levels in dweomerkeeper) crafts a Contingent Spell as a Supernatural ability, which is then exposed to dispelling or an AMF/dead magic zone?

Heck, what happens to any magic item crafted as such?

While (Sp) counts for crafting purposes, (Su) doesn't?

[Rubik]

While (Sp) counts for crafting purposes, (Su) doesn't?But they're still spells; they just have the (Su) type.

[sleepyphoenixx]

What happens if a caster with Initiate of Mystra and the ability to cast spells as supernatural abilities (such as a cleric with levels in dweomerkeeper) crafts a Contingent Spell as a Supernatural ability, which is then exposed to dispelling or an AMF/dead magic zone?

Heck, what happens to any magic item crafted as such?

Crafting is not casting. Supernatural Spell has absolutely no interaction with crafting, which is what Craft Contingent Spell does despite the "spell" in its name.
You can't prepare a spell as a supernatural spell. A spell used in crafting is not actually cast, so you can't apply Supernatural Spell to it.

In fact a supernatural spell isn't a spell at all, it's a (Su) ability. It doesn't work with anything that requires a spell (because it isn't one). You can't craft with it, cast it into a spell storing weapon, manipulate it with Metamagic Effect or other Incantatrix abilities, etc.

And (Su) abilities are still suppressed in an AMF/DMZ.

[Rubik]

Crafting is not casting. Supernatural Spell has absolutely no interaction with crafting, which is what Craft Contingent Spell does despite the "spell" in its name.
You can't prepare a spell as a supernatural spell. A spell used in crafting is not actually cast, so you can't apply Supernatural Spell to it.Fair enough, on this part.


In fact a supernatural spell isn't a spell at all, it's a (Su) ability. It doesn't work with anything that requires a spell (because it isn't one). You can't craft with it, cast it into a spell storing weapon, manipulate it with Metamagic Effect or other Incantatrix abilities, etc.I think you're right, for the dweomerkeeper ability. Not so much for a psionic manifester with the Magic Mantle and the Supernatural Transformation feat, though. It would still be spellcasting/manifesting, but it is such done as a (Su) ability, as well.


And (Su) abilities are still suppressed in an AMF/DMZ.This is not the case for the aforementioned manifester with three levels of cleric and the IoM feat, though it probably would be for most others.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Technically IoM does nothing about spells that are already in effect. It certainly doesn't do anything about supernatural abilities.
If you're going to rules-lawyer, be prepared for your DM to do the same.

And Supernatural Transformation + psionics is incredibly dodgy. One might rule that "innate" means "not from class levels", for example. Because abilities from class levels are learned, not innate.
Or just throw books at your head. Because pretty much anything using Supernatural Transformation deserves it. :smalltongue:

[lordmetalgear]

Few inaccuracies or left out details with all this, maybe in his rage he didn't tell a few things to make his point more known. There was the room wide AMF yes, no where it said was there a homebrew addition to the game. His class I didn't make him be evil he asked me if he could not be evil and I looked it over and did not mind this at all. I told him as soon as the AMF went away the caster dispelled his body, he told that his contingency would go off so the whole argument came where what would take precedence since I could not dispel his body right after the AMF was going away. (This I never verified if I could or not which I am pretty sure I could have) He said he was being brought back I said I the caster would Celerity + Greater Dispel it. I rolled a d20+ Caster Lv and got a 38 so to the people saying I did not that made me laugh. Him and I debated what would react faster, with both of us not knowing how fast Contingent spells work we opened up the cast to the group. It went back and forth cause we have 9 people not knowing the action of a Contingent including the person who started this chat we fell on Celerity vs Clerity or how it would work in a card game and chaining. We debated longer, someone came up with the roll a d20 for both no mods and see what goes first. That I said no to because a character's life is on the line for something so random and I wanted the ruling on this. So we ended up on chaining and his character was killed, was it my fault that he walked up to a golem that he knew was absorbing energy from their magic? I allow all my players to be very powerful, IDC how strong he is UNLESS he is to underpowered I find a way to make them up to par. I allow free LA's and other things, his character is back to life. Before you go around just assuming certain things based off only part of it you really should think about the whole scale of things. If I wanted him dead I would not have tried to let him know I felt bad OR I would not have opened up the debate to everyone.


Here is my question, as soon as the AMF drops could my caster have dispelled his body and have prevented him from coming back? That was what I wanted to do originally.

[Douglas]

Here is my question, as soon as the AMF drops could my caster have dispelled his body and have prevented him from coming back? That was what I wanted to do originally.
Celerity, however fast it may be, is still an action. Contingency is not. In my mind, "not an action" beats any kind of action, no matter how fast.

To use the Magic: The Gathering analogy, Celerity and readied actions (and AoOs and replacements for them) use the stack, but Contingency is state-based.

If your caster had reason to suspect such a thing might be present, the Word of Recall part could be negated by casting a Dimensional Lock that overlaps the area before dropping the AMF. The Resurrection would still go off, but he'd be stuck there in effectively a perfect ambush scenario. If the Contingency arrangement is an unexpected surprise such that Celerity would be necessary, though, Celerity isn't fast enough.

[kellbyb]

I agree with Douglas here, and I don't think there is much more to say on the issue. That said, I would still like to know why you are trying to permanently kill off OP's character.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Here is my question, as soon as the AMF drops could my caster have dispelled his body and have prevented him from coming back? That was what I wanted to do originally.


The contingency spell and the companion spell are cast at the same time.
His contingent spell had already been cast


In all cases, the contingency immediately brings into effect the companion spell, the latter being “cast” instantaneously when the prescribed circumstances occur.
He circumstances were occurring in his case, so the moment his body was no longer in an anti-magic field the contingency would activate. Douglas's analogy is excellent here.

[atemu1234]

His contingent spell had already been cast


He circumstances were occurring in his case, so the moment his body was no longer in an anti-magic field the contingency would activate. Douglas's analogy is excellent here.

God, the stack. That brings back memories. I haven't played MtG in a few months, and haven't been in a tourny even longer.

[TypoNinja]

God, the stack. That brings back memories. I haven't played MtG in a few months, and haven't been in a tourny even longer.

I almost became a DCI judge back in the day, ahh the memories :P

The rules actually share the base with D&D, an exception based rules system, requiring authorization to preform an action, specific vs general, setting up a base state that is then modified by specifics.

M:TG did a pretty good job of keeping their rule book really small, while all the weird things were exceptions printed on cards that allowed the strange effects. So much like D&D basic rules were easy, it was how to combine 50 different silly powers that got tricky.

Those card based exceptions are pretty good match ups to D&D's Feats, class features, racial abilities, and spells.

[lordmetalgear]

I agree with Douglas here, and I don't think there is much more to say on the issue. That said, I would still like to know why you are trying to permanently kill off OP's character.

{scrubbed} I will say though is that I like to learn things about this game that I did not know prior. The caster would have no idea recall was being used just wanted to know if his body could be dispelled like I thought it could. I know now the answer to my questions, I don't DM just for people to play. It started out that way but I DM to tell a story and I feel bad if their characters die but it happens. I hate it when my characters die that I invest time into but **** happens. {scrubbed}

[lordmetalgear]

Celerity, however fast it may be, is still an action. Contingency is not. In my mind, "not an action" beats any kind of action, no matter how fast.

To use the Magic: The Gathering analogy, Celerity and readied actions (and AoOs and replacements for them) use the stack, but Contingency is state-based.

If your caster had reason to suspect such a thing might be present, the Word of Recall part could be negated by casting a Dimensional Lock that overlaps the area before dropping the AMF. The Resurrection would still go off, but he'd be stuck there in effectively a perfect ambush scenario. If the Contingency arrangement is an unexpected surprise such that Celerity would be necessary, though, Celerity isn't fast enough.

Is this based on how you see it or is it said that a "no action " ability is faster than an immediate?

[Renen]

I hope I dont get called an idiot for this but:

You said the caster tries to dispel the dead character. Now... I got a few questions on this front:
1) Why is he doing that? Did he do any checks to know there are things to dispell on a corpse?
2) Do you not think its unfair to change the caster's action from "He dispells" to "He casts celerity and then dispells"? Because that change seema to occur based on knowledge you aquired OOC from your player. The caster in game, has no reason to "reverse time" and add celerity.

And in regards to what will work 1st, both contingent spells and celerity make things happen "immediately". So god knows what would take precedence. But it would make more sence to rule in player's favour in a circumstance that is truly 50/50.

[Crake]

Is this based on how you see it or is it said that a "no action " ability is faster than an immediate?

And in regards to what will work 1st, both contingent spells and celerity make things happen "immediately". So god knows what would take precedence. But it would make more sence to rule in player's favour in a circumstance that is truly 50/50.

Celerity, being an immediate action, requires there to be some time between A and B to "insert" itself. In this case, A is character is in AMF and B is character is not in AMF. There is no gap where the character is neither A nor B, and contingency immediately goes off as soon as B is the case, so there is no time for a celerity to take place.


{scrubbed}I will say though is that I like to learn things about this game that I did not know prior. The caster would have no idea recall was being used just wanted to know if his body could be dispelled like I thought it could. I know now the answer to my questions, I don't DM just for people to play. It started out that way but I DM to tell a story and I feel bad if their characters die but it happens. I hate it when my characters die that I invest time into but **** happens. {scrubbed}

Since you made an account on giantitp just to post in this thread, I think we'd all appreciate it if you kept your posts regarding members of the community civil, no need to resort to such accusations. It was honestly a valid question.

As for "You DM to tell a story", that kind of reasoning is what leads to railroaded games. If you want to tell a story, write a book, if you want to make a story with your players, play dnd. If you're going to just make everything go your way because it suits you, then I urge you to honestly, just not DM unless that's specifically something your players are ok with. If you want to capture the player to show off how powerful the big bad is, do it in a way that the rules allow, and don't use OOC knowledge that your NPCs wouldn't be aware of. If he didn't know that there was contingencies on the player, why would he even dispel the corpse? Let the player get away, and next time, the big bad will know. Don't be a sore loser just cause your players caught you off guard, roll with it, be flexible.

[lordmetalgear]

{scrubbed}

[Renen]

{scrubbed}

So... my questions are disregarded? And you just make a post telling us that you laughed at us? That just sounds like you trying to be mean.

[Crake]

{scrubbed}

This kind of attitude doesn't seem very open to constructive criticism. Bit of a red flag if you ask me.

[TypoNinja]

This kind of attitude doesn't seem very open to constructive criticism. Bit of a red flag if you ask me.

Agreed.

After seeing his responses, I have to say, not only was he wrong on what would work. (The player's contingency beats celerity), but hes wrong for what is clearly an extremely harsh railroad on killing off a PC, he's also clearly a bad DM by simple extrapolation of his poor conduct as a person here.

That kind of attitude is not something I'd trust to balance the enjoyment of an entire group, simply asking him for his reasons got him to call somebody an idiot.

His posts style, for lack of better word, leads me to think hes on the young side, here's hoping its just a case of somebody not used to criticism yet.

[JDL]

Yeah, glad this guy's not my DM. The overwhelming consensus here is that the player's contingency would take effect before any attempt to prevent it could be made. DM fiat aside, this is a valid strategy for preserving a valued character that's achieved high level and invested significant resources into preventing their untimely demise.

Of course that doesn't prevent a DM just saying 'nope.' Seems that's the case here and logical reasoning isn't going to change that fact. At the end of the day a game relies on consent between players and DM or else the willing suspension of disbelief evaporates and dissatisfaction erodes the fun from the game.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Metagaming counters that change on the fly based on the DM's understanding of the situation are bad no matter what the specific ruling is for celerity vs. contingency. I think Tippy has the right of it, but as he mentioned you have to be aware of the effect. That is incredibly key, as there is very little this caster could have done to become aware of the effect. And I'm not even saying he had to know there was a contingency (which clearly he only knew after the player mentioned it). I'm saying the caster has to observe the effect of the contingency occurring in order to counter it, which again, he clearly didn't in this scenario, no matter how it's ruled as an academic point.

As established by the DM's complete non-answers mostly in the form of ad-hominem and non-sequitur it's actually quite clear he was trying to perma-kill the OP's character. Given what the DM has said so far it's likely this was an extended "punishment" for not reading into the clues. Because obviously every character should be prepared for homebrew monsters that counter 99% of all PCs but especially the given PC, do enough damage to kill pretty much any un-buffed PC in one hit, and then getting specifically countered by a metagaming mage who just happens to show up after the PC in question leaves the AoE of the homebrew AMF.

Those preparations, I might add, should be preparing a new campaign for someone else to run.

[Darkweave31]

lordmetalgear, please take a look at the Rules of Posting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1). They make the forum a nicer place.

[kellbyb]

{scrubbed} The caster would have no idea recall was being used just wanted to know if his body could be dispelled like I thought it could. I know now the answer to my questions, I don't DM just for people to play. It started out that way but I DM to tell a story and I feel bad if their characters die but it happens. I hate it when my characters die that I invest time into but **** happens. {scrubbed}

I understand that player death happens, and if a player were to ignore obvious visual cues like you described, they would get wrecked. However, I would let them get off with the contingent spells, but warn them that Mr. bad will have wised up and it won't work next time. D&D 3.5 is a game where death is usually nothing more than a setback, especially at mid-to-high levels where your PC's are. The fact that you seem to be taking specific action to force OP into a new character is something that should not be taken lightly, and it worries me that you apparently don't feel the need to justify it.

[Segev]

Here is my question, as soon as the AMF drops could my caster have dispelled his body and have prevented him from coming back? That was what I wanted to do originally.

No, he couldn't have. If this is something the bad guys in question are actively concerned with wrt those they kill in this chamber, the best idea would be to enclose the AMF in a larger Dimension Lock. Then remove the corpse from the AMF, see if anything happens, dispell any effects that seem to be hanging, and move on. The resurrection would happen, but the dimension lock would prevent any teleportation away (though the contingency for it still would go off since dim lock shut it down rather than suppressing it). Then kill him again.

Why so determined to perma-kill his character, when he clearly had the precautions in place to prevent it?

[lordmetalgear]

No, he couldn't have. If this is something the bad guys in question are actively concerned with wrt those they kill in this chamber, the best idea would be to enclose the AMF in a larger Dimension Lock. Then remove the corpse from the AMF, see if anything happens, dispell any effects that seem to be hanging, and move on. The resurrection would happen, but the dimension lock would prevent any teleportation away (though the contingency for it still would go off since dim lock shut it down rather than suppressing it). Then kill him again.

Why so determined to perma-kill his character, when he clearly had the precautions in place to prevent it?

Just curious.

[atemu1234]

Just curious.

That reaches into batman-level gambitting :smallannoyed:. You rule it kills the character so the player will post a thread about it on an anonymous forum you both frequent?

[lordmetalgear]

I understand that player death happens, and if a player were to ignore obvious visual cues like you described, they would get wrecked. However, I would let them get off with the contingent spells, but warn them that Mr. bad will have wised up and it won't work next time. D&D 3.5 is a game where death is usually nothing more than a setback, especially at mid-to-high levels where your PC's are. The fact that you seem to be taking specific action to force OP into a new character is something that should not be taken lightly, and it worries me that you apparently don't feel the need to justify it.

I was out smarted fair and simple. This is my first campaign, I do not know every rule and before this I had a max character lv of 8. I thought what I had would work and would cause an arc. It failed in the way I wanted to go, so I am curious in learning what beats what.

[lordmetalgear]

That reaches into batman-level gambitting :smallannoyed:. You rule it kills the character so the player will post a thread about it on an anonymous forum you both frequent?

Haha no I thought there was no main ruling on this cause both my rule lawyers did not know.

[Flickerdart]

Trying to dispel a contingency in response to it triggering is a lot like trying to disarm a gun that's already been fired.

[atemu1234]

I was out smarted fair and simple. This is my first campaign, I do not know every rule and before this I had a max character lv of 8. I thought what I had would work and would cause an arc. It failed in the way I wanted to go, so I am curious in learning what beats what.

Then why make a ruling that kills a character, when the person whose character it is seems to have at least a bit more understanding and rules-mastery?

Ah well, I suppose we all made errors as DM at some point. You should probably at least offer a resurrection, maybe come up with an in-game reason for the contingency failing. Also, maybe you should try asking this forum questions. It'd help you, I know it helped me.

[lordmetalgear]

Then why make a ruling that kills a character, when the person whose character it is seems to have at least a bit more understanding and rules-mastery?

Ah well, I suppose we all made errors as DM at some point. You should probably at least offer a resurrection, maybe come up with an in-game reason for the contingency failing. Also, maybe you should try asking this forum questions. It'd help you, I know it helped me.

He did not know the ruling he said so himself, he had no idea. So because due to everyones lack of what would happen I made a call. I can't answer certain questions cause would ruin what could or may happen. The opinions of me I really don't care if I am loved or hated, I apologize for breaking the rules that was not my intention.

[lordmetalgear]

Weirdly enough I never thought of using this site for questions like that to be honest. I will in the future.

[lordmetalgear]

Trying to dispel a contingency in response to it triggering is a lot like trying to disarm a gun that's already been fired.

I thought this was well before I read any of this I thought it was as the bullet would fire the gun would jam.

[Crake]

Trying to dispel a contingency in response to it triggering is a lot like trying to disarm a gun that's already been fired.

A very apt way to put it, couldn't have described it simpler myself

[atemu1234]

I thought this was well before I read any of this I thought it was as the bullet would fire the gun would jam.

To be fair, the bullet's already out of the gun.

[lordmetalgear]

To be fair, the bullet's already out of the gun.

I know this now.

[atemu1234]

I know this now.

I know. But I can't leave a metaphor unfinished.

[Crake]

If you're going to post here, it's worth noting that if you have something to add to a post, you can just edit them rather than triple posting

[Deophaun]

The wording was, and I quote "Should I find myself Dead, activate this contingency"
I'm curious to know how you made that Search check. :smallamused:

[Sliver]

Doesn't your soul turn into a projection when you die? There is a feat that allows one to see and talk to those recently deceased, so I'd assume that there is a window of time in which you could find yourself dead. Other ways of finding yourself, though not dead, involve dismemberment and reflections, I'd imagine.

I think Spot is more relevant to finding a person than search, anyway. Perhaps Gather Information... "Excuse me, have you seen me? I'm absolutely fabulous."