Is contingency omniscient?

[Hrugner]

Seeing as how contingency only requires that you set parameters without indicating any requirement for awareness limits for the spell, it seems you should be able to use it as an absolute scrying tool. Seeing as how it can be used to gather information but has none of the spell counters built into scrying, it seems unnaturally potent for it's spell level. I'm hoping there's something in the rules that prevents this but I can't seem to find anything of the sort.

If there's no rules based solution, I am interested in homebrew solutions to this problem.

[Brova]

As far as I can tell, there's no rules text limiting the information being acted on. That being said, I'm not convinced it's a super effective way to get information. If you're really worried, you could just house rule it to be like casting the spell, except immediate. That would prevent it from acting on information you don't know.

[gooddragon1]

Seeing as how contingency only requires that you set parameters without indicating any requirement for awareness limits for the spell, it seems you should be able to use it as an absolute scrying tool. Seeing as how it can be used to gather information but has none of the spell counters built into scrying, it seems unnaturally potent for it's spell level. I'm hoping there's something in the rules that prevents this but I can't seem to find anything of the sort.

If there's no rules based solution, I am interested in homebrew solutions to this problem.

I would treat the spell as an entity with a sight range/senses range. If it doesn't know about the condition within it's senses, it can't activate. Epic Spells sometimes do this with the foresee seed to allow them to do things that one seed can't do without knowing about.

[Talakeal]

Magic mouth used to have the same problem. It was more or less omniscient by RAW, and the players would use it as a "ghetto divination".

The 3.5 version of Magic Mouth has limits built in on what it can sense, so that would probably be a good place to start for house rules on getting rid of omniscient contingencies.

[Segev]

...huh. I'd never noticed that, but there is no limit, is there. I kept thinking there was, so I had to re-read it several times to make sure I hadn't missed it.

But a contingency of, "If my daughter kisses a boy I haven't given her approval to be dating, teleport me to her location," would actually work (for an overprotective parent), even though it relies on information that is completely impossible for you to know.

Heck, "If somebody says [keyword, perhaps what the wizard considers his 'true name'], teleport me to his location," would be reason behind some of the "say his name and he shall arrive" legends.

[Endarire]

Based on RAW, contingency is omnscient regarding triggering conditions.

[Hrugner]

As far as I can tell, there's no rules text limiting the information being acted on. That being said, I'm not convinced it's a super effective way to get information. If you're really worried, you could just house rule it to be like casting the spell, except immediate. That would prevent it from acting on information you don't know.

It isn't the most effective way to get information in general, it is however the most effective way to get information that is either protected from magical information gathering, or completely unknowable with any form of observation. Setting a timer that counted up rapidly with a contingency spell to stop the timer when the timer hit numbers like: the age of the universe, the year I will die etc. would be very potent. More mundane uses would be setting contingencies that ignore disguises, illusion, floating through parallel dimensions, or any other method of avoiding scrutiny; you can't scry to another plane, or true seeing through a bluff check, but contingency can act as if it had done so.

[Brova]

...huh. I'd never noticed that, but there is no limit, is there. I kept thinking there was, so I had to re-read it several times to make sure I hadn't missed it.

But a contingency of, "If my daughter kisses a boy I haven't given her approval to be dating, teleport me to her location," would actually work (for an overprotective parent), even though it relies on information that is completely impossible for you to know.

Heck, "If somebody says [keyword, perhaps what the wizard considers his 'true name'], teleport me to his location," would be reason behind some of the "say his name and he shall arrive" legends.

That raises a new question - how does the spell "under" the contingency target? Obviously it can't target things it couldn't previously, but can it target things you don't know about? Could you have a contingent wish or gate targeting "the individual most threatening to me"?

[holywhippet]

This thread reminds me of a story I saw posted a while back. The players of a D&D game complained to their DM that every wizard they faced wasn't challenging enough. So he drew up a new campaign where the wizard was in a tower or something overlooking a nearby town. The characters were meant to deal with the wizard and went into town then started asking questions about him. This triggered a contingency scrying spell which let the wizard scope out the party and see they were a threat. He called up a demon he'd been doing business with and negotiated a series of wishes which he used to simply wish the party members out of existence.

Anyway, there's a similar dilemma with the magic missile spell. Say you see a monster at the end of a narrow corridor. You cast magic missile at them and the spell, according to the description, always hits the target unless something like a shield spell blocks it. Unknown to you though, there is a second monster who is invisible and is standing between you and your target. This monster is large enough to fill up most of the corridor. So the question is, what does the magic missile do? If it hits the invisible monster it doesn't fulfill the requirement of always hitting the target it is cast at. If it/they bends around the invisible monster then you will notice that and effectively get a free divination showing you there is something invisible there.

[Telok]

This thread reminds me of a story I saw posted a while back...

Yeah. This is one of those situations that requires DM adjucation and player buy-in. If you get scientific about it you can cause paradox-like situations and start breaking game play. Luckily in actual games it's usually too inefficent in time or spell slots to use.

[Psyren]

It's omniscient as far as detecting triggers, but that doesn't mean it will work:

"If complicated or convoluted conditions are prescribed, the whole spell combination (contingency and the companion magic) may fail when triggered."

The first bolded terms have no rules definition, so it's up to the GM to decide what could be considered "complicated." And they would be free to define anything that the spell cannot detect in your general vicinity or using your own senses under that.

[Hrugner]

I suppose you'd then need to engage in some shenanigans by having a contingency cast on your familiar with your desired complex trigger, and a second one on yourself that activated when the familiar's contingency triggered and failed "when my familiar is no longer under the effect of this contingency spell". This would more or less put us back at square one.

[Psyren]

I suppose you'd then need to engage in some shenanigans by having a contingency cast on your familiar with your desired complex trigger, and a second one on yourself that activated when the familiar's contingency triggered and failed "when my familiar is no longer under the effect of this contingency spell". This would more or less put us back at square one.

A trigger dependent on the state of a complicated trigger would itself be complicated I'd say.

[erok0809]

A trigger dependent on the state of a complicated trigger would itself be complicated I'd say.

I don't know about that, because of the way he worded it. His contingency is simple, because it's just a toggle of "familiar has active contingency." Whether the familiar's contingency actually succeeds when triggered or not doesn't come into it, the second contingency just checks whether the first one is still active or not.

[Psyren]

I don't know about that, because of the way he worded it. His contingency is simple, because it's just a toggle of "familiar has active contingency." Whether the familiar's contingency actually succeeds when triggered or not doesn't come into it, the second contingency just checks whether the first one is still active or not.

A contingency that triggers based on the state of another contingency for any reason would count as complicated for me. (No recursing.) (https://xkcd.com/244/)

[Segev]

Moreover, a "failed trigger" isn't, "the conditions were met, but the spell fizzled." It's, "The trigger never fired because it didn't recognize that the conditions were met."

So "When my familiar's trigger fails" wouldn't work: the trigger never HAPPENS.

[Talakeal]

A contingency that triggers based on the state of another contingency for any reason would count as complicated for me. (No recursing.) (https://xkcd.com/244/)


If the contingency on my familiar disappears is about as simple as can be and I see no reason why this would fail.... but...


Moreover, a "failed trigger" isn't, "the conditions were met, but the spell fizzled." It's, "The trigger never fired because it didn't recognize that the conditions were met."

So "When my familiar's trigger fails" wouldn't work: the trigger never HAPPENS.

Yeah, I was about to say the same thing.

[Psyren]

If the contingency on my familiar disappears is about as simple as can be and I see no reason why this would fail.... but...

Nested contingencies aren't simple, certainly not "as simple as can be." As simple as can be, by definition, would be something simpler - a single contingency rather than two.

[sreservoir]

two contingencies can surely be as simple as can be if one is too simple and so can't be.

[Psyren]

two contingencies can surely be as simple as can be if one is too simple and so can't be.

How would you define "too simple?"

[(Un)Inspired]

This is literally my favorite thread I've ever seen so far on this forum.


I think the part of the spell referring to complicated or convoluted contingencies is beautiful in the space it allows a DM to do some interpreting.

As far as exploring the absolute is concerned, how to we define both the words convoluted and complicated?

[atemu1234]

Is there a way of making a device that casts Bless every time someone in the multiverse sneezes, on the person who sneezed?

[Talakeal]

Nested contingencies aren't simple, certainly not "as simple as can be." As simple as can be, by definition, would be something simpler - a single contingency rather than two.

IMO the complexity of the observed event has nothing to do with the complexity of the observation.

For example, imagine taking a photograph of a ball bearing and a nuclear submarine. One subject is immeasurably more complex than the other, but the act of taking the photograph is more or less the same complexity in both cases.


The problem in this case isn't the second contingency, it is the (mistaken) presumption that the contingency is in effect until the overly complex situation occurs, at which point it fizzles. The "cheesy" part of that scenario is the gaining knowledge rather than the actual spell effect, that is merely the cherry on top.


Is there a way of making a device that casts Bless every time someone in the multiverse sneezes, on the person who sneezed?

IIRC Contingency is self only. But you could probably set one up to go off when YOU sneeze, provided you could find a way to cast an arcane blessing (not overly hard).

[Extra Anchovies]

Is there a way of making a device that casts Bless every time someone in the multiverse sneezes, on the person who sneezed?

Hm. Set up a room with a box in the center, large enough for any creature to fit inside (so up to colossal+, I guess). It'll need a small hole in it to create line of effect. Create an auto-reset Bless trap that it activates on each round that a creature is inside the box, and casts Bless on the creature inside the box. Create an auto-reset Contingency (trigger condition: someone sneezes) and Repair Minor Damage (targeting the trap, since it's the thing casting the Contingency) trap in the same room (that's one trap; it creates a contingent repair minor damage that is cast on the trap when someone sneezes) that triggers each time Repair Minor Damage is cast inside the room (so it remakes the contingency each time it is expended). Create a chain of auto-reset traps of various divination spells, each one triggered by the activation of the previous one, and the first one triggered by the activation of the Repair Minor Damage trap, that collectively determine the identity of the sneezing creature (not sure what spells to use but I'm sure there's a way). Create an auto-reset Gate trap to call the creature that sneezed. Create an auto-reset Dismissal trap that triggers whenever the Bless trap does.

This gets us a device that, whenever someone sneezes, calls that creature, casts Bless on it, and returns it to its home plane.

Stick this all on a fast-time demiplane so it can be used more than once per 10 minutes, and so it can apply to anyone who isn't in the demiplane. Maybe 10 years on the plane = 1 round on the material plane? That should be enough to handle tens or even hundreds of thousands of sneezes per round across all planes, even if the full trap chain takes a while, and if need be we could make the fast-time plane have even faster time.

Also, I got halfway through typing that before I realized the joke. Nice one.

ETA: I'm vaguely disappointed that Ocular Contingency wasn't necessary, because Ocular is one of my favorite pieces of cheese. It allows only rays and spells with a target other than personal. But while there are plenty of spells with a range of personal, there are zero with a target of personal. All of the personal-range spells have a target of "you". So you can do things like cast an Ocular Tenser's Transformation on the BBEG spellcaster to turn them into a Warrior with a lower hit die.

But then, that's still relevant. Does an Ocular Contingency count towards the one-contingency limit of the caster, or towards the limit of the target?

[BowStreetRunner]

Player: "Okay, at the main door to the tower I'm going to cast contingency and baleful polymorph."
DM: "What are the terms you are setting for the contingency."
P: "When the captain of the guard opens the door, cast baleful polymorph to change him into a toad."
DM "The rule states that the conditions of the spell can be general, but nothing about captains or other lower ranked officers."
P: "Really? Well, what about the garrison commander. Isn't he a general?"
DM: "That's true, but it also says that the conditions needed to bring the spell into effect must be clear. The door isn't clear. You can cast it on a window if you want."
P: "What? Okay, never mind. It's hot and close in the tower, so I'll cast it so that when he opens the window it triggers."
DM: "It also says complicated or convoluted conditions may cause the spell to fail. Something composed of elaborately interconnected parts would be complicated. That would include the window opening."
P: "Are you sure you're reading that correctly?"
DM: "I've got the rule book and a dictionary to check it."
P: "Huh. Okay. Well, I know the officers in this garrison like to smoke from that weird hookah in the corner. It's mostly glass, so that is clear, and it doesn't look to complicated."
DM: "Yeah, but it has that coiled tube on it."
P: "So?"
DM: "An object that is twisted or coiled can be said to be convoluted."
P: "Um...okay. How about the magnifying glass sitting on the map table. When the commander of the garrison looks through the glass it will turn him into a toad."
DM: "Let's see...general...clear...not complicated...not convoluted...yeah, that should work. So everything goes as planned and when the general sneezes you are turned into a toad."
P: "Um...don't you meant the general is turned into a toad?"
DM: " Nope, it states very clearly that the spell must be one that affects your person, not someone else."
P: "You must be reading that wrong. That can't be what it means."

[Hrugner]

Hm. Set up a room with a box in the center, large enough for any creature to fit inside (so up to colossal+, I guess). It'll need a small hole in it to create line of effect. Create an auto-reset Bless trap that it activates on each round that a creature is inside the box, and casts Bless on the creature inside the box. Create an auto-reset Contingency (trigger condition: someone sneezes) and Repair Minor Damage (targeting the trap, since it's the thing casting the Contingency) trap in the same room (that's one trap; it creates a contingent repair minor damage that is cast on the trap when someone sneezes) that triggers each time Repair Minor Damage is cast inside the room (so it remakes the contingency each time it is expended). Create a chain of auto-reset traps of various divination spells, each one triggered by the activation of the previous one, and the first one triggered by the activation of the Repair Minor Damage trap, that collectively determine the identity of the sneezing creature (not sure what spells to use but I'm sure there's a way). Create an auto-reset Gate trap to call the creature that sneezed. Create an auto-reset Dismissal trap that triggers whenever the Bless trap does.

This gets us a device that, whenever someone sneezes, calls that creature, casts Bless on it, and returns it to its home plane.

Stick this all on a fast-time demiplane so it can be used more than once per 10 minutes, and so it can apply to anyone who isn't in the demiplane. Maybe 10 years on the plane = 1 round on the material plane? That should be enough to handle tens or even hundreds of thousands of sneezes per round across all planes, even if the full trap chain takes a while, and if need be we could make the fast-time plane have even faster time.

Also, I got halfway through typing that before I realized the joke. Nice one.

ETA: I'm vaguely disappointed that Ocular Contingency wasn't necessary, because Ocular is one of my favorite pieces of cheese. It allows only rays and spells with a target other than personal. But while there are plenty of spells with a range of personal, there are zero with a target of personal. All of the personal-range spells have a target of "you". So you can do things like cast an Ocular Tenser's Transformation on the BBEG spellcaster to turn them into a Warrior with a lower hit die.

But then, that's still relevant. Does an Ocular Contingency count towards the one-contingency limit of the caster, or towards the limit of the target?

Your dimension(elemental plane of sneezes) would rapidly fill up with airborne bacteria and viruses. Sneezing would be an extremely risky activity in a very short time. The planet from which the sneezers are taken would also begin losing atmosphere to the elemental plane of sneezes.

[Extra Anchovies]

Is there any way to negate the chance of Dismissal sending a creature to a plane other than "its proper plane" (which is vague enough to be interpreted as the plane from which the creature was called via Gate)? I like using Dismissal because with CL boosting shenanigans we can make it such that there is no possible way to make the save without having arbitrary or infinite ability scores (and even then we can get an infinite save DC if we really want to), but the potential for sending innocents to the Abyss is too high.

Does Banishment inherit the save DC calculations of Dismissal? If so, we just need to replace the latter spell with the former.


Your dimension(elemental plane of sneezes) would rapidly fill up with airborne bacteria and viruses. Sneezing would be an extremely risky activity in a very short time. The planet from which the sneezers are taken would also begin losing atmosphere to the elemental plane of sneezes.

The contingency triggers when the sneeze occurs, so the sneeze has already resolved by the time the Gate pulls the sneezer through. The full process is sneeze -> contingency triggers and casts RMD -> divination chain triggers one by one -> gate triggers -> bless triggers -> dismissal triggers. A pre-sneeze contingency trigger would be much too complicated.

[Psyren]

IMO the complexity of the observed event has nothing to do with the complexity of the observation.

For example, imagine taking a photograph of a ball bearing and a nuclear submarine. One subject is immeasurably more complex than the other, but the act of taking the photograph is more or less the same complexity in both cases.

Except one photo would clearly lack the detail of what the subject is. You would need several photos of the nuclear submarine to do that.

Imagine for instance that you had two nuclear submarines, but one was a hollowed-out shell. A photograph would not reveal that distinction, yet the latter clearly would no longer be a submarine despite looking like one - it would sink like a stone and be incapable of propulsion, neither of which allow it to be a submarine. Your argument is like saying a Silent Image of a creature is equal in complexity to that creature, which is patently false.

[Socratov]

This is literally my favorite thread I've ever seen so far on this forum.


I think the part of the spell referring to complicated or convoluted contingencies is beautiful in the space it allows a DM to do some interpreting.

As far as exploring the absolute is concerned, how to we define both the words convoluted and complicated?

Well, feel free to use another, but I'll stick to the Oxford English Dictionary:


Convoluted


Line breaks: con|vo¦luted
Pronunciation: /ˌkɒnvəˈl(j)uːtɪd/
Definition of convoluted in English:
adjective

1(Especially of an argument, story, or sentence) extremely complex and difficult to follow:
the film is let down by a convoluted plot in which nothing really happens
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
2chiefly technical Intricately folded, twisted, or coiled:
walnuts come in hard and convoluted shells


Complicated

Line breaks: com|pli|cated
Pronunciation: /ˈkɒmplɪkeɪtɪd/
Definition of complicated in English:
adjective

1Consisting of many interconnecting parts or elements; intricate:
a complicated stereo system
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
1.1Involving many different and confusing aspects:
a long and complicated saga


as they both refer to intricate...

Intricate:

Line breaks: in¦tri|cate
Pronunciation: /ˈɪntrɪkət/
Definition of intricate in English:
adjective

Very complicated or detailed:
an intricate network of canals


I think we can agree that something depending on your familiar having a contingency is neither complicated, nor convoluted. The total number of contingencies might become more convoluted, complicated or intricate, but the contingency itself won't. So I'd say it would work fine as is. As for determining wether a contingency is convoluted or complex a bit of communication between DM and player should occur. The description is vague at best and both the player's point of view as the DM's point of view hold merit.

[ryu]

Well, feel free to use another, but I'll stick to the Oxford English Dictionary:


Convoluted


Complicated


as they both refer to intricate...

Intricate:


I think we can agree that something depending on your familiar having a contingency is neither complicated, nor convoluted. The total number of contingencies might become more convoluted, complicated or intricate, but the contingency itself won't. So I'd say it would work fine as is. As for determining wether a contingency is convoluted or complex a bit of communication between DM and player should occur. The description is vague at best and both the player's point of view as the DM's point of view hold merit.

Exactly. It's like building a piece of factory equipment. None of the individual pieces are complicated at all. The whole usually is though. This is why I loves me some contingent spell crafting. If you're a crazy enough person you can literally be prepared for anything and everything.

[Talakeal]

So I reread the contingency. You know, by RAW, this exploit seems 100% legit. Because it does say that the spell "fails when called upon". Thus you could have some contingency set up with crazy convoluted or obscure conditions, and then simply keep detect magic or something up and wait for the contingency to disappear, then you would know that the condition has been met. Even if the familiar trick didn't work (I personally see no reason it wouldn't) just set your personal contingency to go off when you snap your fingers, and do so when you notice the familiars contingency is gone.




Except one photo would clearly lack the detail of what the subject is. You would need several photos of the nuclear submarine to do that.

Imagine for instance that you had two nuclear submarines, but one was a hollowed-out shell. A photograph would not reveal that distinction, yet the latter clearly would no longer be a submarine despite looking like one - it would sink like a stone and be incapable of propulsion, neither of which allow it to be a submarine. Your argument is like saying a Silent Image of a creature is equal in complexity to that creature, which is patently false.


But the contingency isn't analyzing the contingency and doesn't care about its functions or inner workings.

The worded contingency was just "when my familiar is no longer under the effect of this contingency spell".

If your argument is that contingency must fully examine everything to make sure it is genuine before it can use it as a trigger*, that creates an even weirder example. For example, the human body is super complex, way more complex than a nuclear submarine, but I don't imagine that a contingency that targeted the first human to touch me would be complex, even though by this line of reasoning it could need to map out his entire anatomy (all 700 trillion cells) to verify that it is in fact a person and not a silent image.

I think at this point we might be unintentionally straw-manning one another because "Your argument is like saying a Silent Image of a creature is equal in complexity to that creature, which is patently false," isn't what I am arguing, I am arguing that the act of observing a silent image of a man is no more complex than the act of observing an actual man.



*Also, a simple task might be too difficult to execute. For example, if I gave someone an order to collect and sort every rock on Earth, the task would be impossibly difficult and complex, but the order itself was conveyed in one simple sentence. Likewise a contingency may have an order that would be too complicated to execute without itself being very complicated.

[Psyren]

*Also, a simple task might be too difficult to execute. For example, if I gave someone an order to collect and sort every rock on Earth, the task would be impossibly difficult and complex, but the order itself was conveyed in one simple sentence. Likewise a contingency may have an order that would be too complicated to execute without itself being very complicated.

This strengthens my point, not yours. Even something that sounds simple (one sentence) can be extraordinarily complex to execute. In other words, what are the exact mechanics by which an evocation spell is capable of monitoring another evocation spell which is itself monitoring for {whatever elaborate conditions you're trying to protect against}? What senses/knowledge does the second one use to understand the state of the first one's trigger? That can all be quite complicated even if your statement is simple.

The end result of all that is that the range of what can be considered "complicated" and thus fail is pretty broad. To which I say, good.

[Talakeal]

This strengthens my point, not yours. Even something that sounds simple (one sentence) can be extraordinarily complex to execute. In other words, what are the exact mechanics by which an evocation spell is capable of monitoring another evocation spell which is itself monitoring for {whatever elaborate conditions you're trying to protect against}? What senses/knowledge does the second one use to understand the state of the first one's trigger? That can all be quite complicated even if your statement is simple.

The end result of all that is that the range of what can be considered "complicated" and thus fail is pretty broad. To which I say, good.

Complex to execute and complex to observe are completely different things.

If I hired someone to sit in a room with a phone and answer the phone if it rings is a simple task in almost any circumstance.

If the phone will only ring under some incredibly convoluted rube Goldberg-esque scheme that involves thousands of precisely calibrated steps it does not make the task of hearing the phone ring and picking it up any more complicated.

If a contingency is capable of monitoring the existence of another spell (which IMO it should be able to) then what the other spell is monitoring should be completely irrelevant.

Imagine, for example, there was a wizard with a relatively standard contingency, say, "If I am stabbed teleport me home."

Would you say that one could cause this contingency to fail by making the conditions for the stabbing convoluted? For example I hire an assassin to stab the wizard with a knife forged by the third son of an orcish horse rancher named bob precisely 720 days after my daughter's second birthday while wearing a blue robe sewn by a sirine in the pacific ocean while thinking about the last time they had a good steak while sitting on a table made from wood from a forest on the island where an eagle once killed a dragon under a lunar eclipse... etc. etc. etc.

In my mind it doesn't matter how convoluted the circumstances are, the contingency only cares whether or not the wizard is stabbed. Everything else is completely irrelevant to the contingency's ability to do its job.


All you are doing by causing a contingency to fail by measuring the complexity of the circumstances that bring about its trigger is giving everyone a headache and causing contingencies to fail when they really shouldn't. This in no way actually solves the OP problem of contingencies being omniscient as the spell still fails at the moment it is triggered rather than remaining un-triggered, so all it takes is a simple detect magic to turn contingency into the ultimate divination regardless of whether or not a second contingency can be based around it.



Edit: Also, to directly address your statement, wording has nothing to do with what I am saying. Telling someone to "sort every rock in the world" is an incredibly complex task. Watching my employee tell me that he can't sort every rock in the world is an incredibly simple task. That is the distinction I am making.

[Segev]

It doesn't say the spell fails. It says the trigger fails.

Essentially, the wording is a warning: If you tell it to work only when the sun is up, when you're underground, if vampires attack, on nights with a clear sky, then the trigger never goes off, because it wound up being contradictory.

If the trigger is instead just unclear, such that nobody can quite agree whether it should go off in a particular circumstance or not (or the DM would have to make a judgment call as to whether it qualifies or not), it may just not go off because...the conditions weren't explicitly enouth met.

That's the "failure." If the DM is having to route through logic trees and has a substantial risk of getting lost, then it fails on the grounds that whatever magic is making the decision just isn't clever enough to piece it together. Not, "It fizzles because the condition was met but it decided to spite you," but "it never realized the condition was met."

[Talakeal]

It doesn't say the spell fails. It says the trigger fails.

Essentially, the wording is a warning: If you tell it to work only when the sun is up, when you're underground, if vampires attack, on nights with a clear sky, then the trigger never goes off, because it wound up being contradictory.

If the trigger is instead just unclear, such that nobody can quite agree whether it should go off in a particular circumstance or not (or the DM would have to make a judgment call as to whether it qualifies or not), it may just not go off because...the conditions weren't explicitly enouth met.

That's the "failure." If the DM is having to route through logic trees and has a substantial risk of getting lost, then it fails on the grounds that whatever magic is making the decision just isn't clever enough to piece it together. Not, "It fizzles because the condition was met but it decided to spite you," but "it never realized the condition was met."

The exact quote is (in 3.5) "If complicated or convoluted conditions are prescribed, the whole spell combination (contingency and the companion magic) may fail when called upon."

It would make the most sense for either the spell to fail when first cast or for the trigger to simply never go off, but by RAW I believe we do have omniscient contingencies that work fine until called upon, at which point they go kaput. I am unhappy with that from both a fluff and crunch perspective and would house rule it to work differently, but that is the only strict reading that makes sense to me.

[Segev]

The exact quote is (in 3.5) "If complicated or convoluted conditions are prescribed, the whole spell combination (contingency and the companion magic) may fail when called upon."

It would make the most sense for either the spell to fail when first cast or for the trigger to simply never go off, but by RAW I believe we do have omniscient contingencies that work fine until called upon, at which point they go kaput. I am unhappy with that from both a fluff and crunch perspective and would house rule it to work differently, but that is the only strict reading that makes sense to me.

Again, "may fail when called upon" doesn't mean "fizzles and ceases to be active." It means that none of them trigger.

I do see the contrary argument, but the whole point of the "complex/convoluted" clause is relating to, essentially, times when the DM just can't figure out if it should trigger or not. If the DM knows "it should have triggered here," it probably wasn't "complicated or convoluted" enough to be a problem.

[Psyren]

In my mind it doesn't matter how convoluted the circumstances are, the contingency only cares whether or not the wizard is stabbed. Everything else is completely irrelevant to the contingency's ability to do its job.

That one is simple enough for you to pull off with just one contingency, so this one is irrelevant - you could simply use one contingency rather than two. So to address your earlier argument, the moment you add that second contingency, this is not "as simple as can be."

The situation in this thread is different - someone trying to do an end-run around a complex trigger by coming up with something complex enough to be guaranteed to fail, and then tying a simple trigger to its failure. (Which as Segev has rightly noted, is not itself a trigger.)

So to use your example, a contingency B such that "if my contingency A dependent on an assassin stabbing a wizard with a knife forged by the third son of an orcish horse rancher named bob precisely 720 days after my daughter's second birthday while wearing a blue robe sewn by a sirine in the pacific ocean while thinking about the last time they had a good steak while sitting on a table made from wood from a forest on the island where an eagle once killed a dragon under a lunar eclipse fails, go ahead and trigger" is itself complicated and would also fail.

[Talakeal]

Again, "may fail when called upon" doesn't mean "fizzles and ceases to be active." It means that none of them trigger.

I do see the contrary argument, but the whole point of the "complex/convoluted" clause is relating to, essentially, times when the DM just can't figure out if it should trigger or not. If the DM knows "it should have triggered here," it probably wasn't "complicated or convoluted" enough to be a problem.

Ok, yeah, I can see how it could be read that way.

Of course, the bigger issue is that complex / convoluted does not stop the spell from being omniscient.

A spell set to go off, say, "When Zeus thinks ill of me," is not complex or convoluted, it merely requires the contingency to have knowledge it shouldn't rightly have.

[Psyren]

Ok, yeah, I can see how it could be read that way.

Of course, the bigger issue is that complex / convoluted does not stop the spell from being omniscient.

A spell set to go off, say, "When Zeus thinks ill of me," is not complex or convoluted, it merely requires the contingency to have knowledge it shouldn't rightly have.

The contingency is indeed omniscient. That doesn't mean it will go off however.

[Segev]

Ok, yeah, I can see how it could be read that way.

Of course, the bigger issue is that complex / convoluted does not stop the spell from being omniscient.

A spell set to go off, say, "When Zeus thinks ill of me," is not complex or convoluted, it merely requires the contingency to have knowledge it shouldn't rightly have.

Oh, certainly.

Which is why this is still VERY powerful and potentially a lot of fun. "When anybody says my name disrespectfully, teleport me such that I am standing five feet behind them," would be a valid trigger. If you make a practice of casting Celerity the moment you appear suddenly behind somebody, you can then take an immediate action to brutally punish them for their sin against you, in full view of anybody who saw them do it.

Then either teleport away (if you fear retribution) or stay and terrorize those who were present, so word spreads that mentioning your name brings your swift vengence!

[Talakeal]

That one is simple enough for you to pull off with just one contingency, so this one is irrelevant - you could simply use one contingency rather than two. So to address your earlier argument, the moment you add that second contingency, this is not "as simple as can be."

The situation in this thread is different - someone trying to do an end-run around a complex trigger by coming up with something complex enough to be guaranteed to fail, and then tying a simple trigger to its failure. (Which as Segev has rightly noted, is not itself a trigger.)

So to use your example, a contingency B such that "if my contingency A dependent on an assassin stabbing a wizard with a knife forged by the third son of an orcish horse rancher named bob precisely 720 days after my daughter's second birthday while wearing a blue robe sewn by a sirine in the pacific ocean while thinking about the last time they had a good steak while sitting on a table made from wood from a forest on the island where an eagle once killed a dragon under a lunar eclipse fails, go ahead and trigger" is itself complicated and would also fail.

I'm sorry, I am having trouble following your logic.

Are you are saying that it is the act of involving two contingencies that makes something "too complex or convoluted?"

So, for example, if I had a contingency set to go off when Bob the wizard cast's haste on himself, that is a-ok.

But if Bob the wizard cast haste on himself with a contingency of his own, my contingency is now too complex and will fail?


Or are you saying that it only becomes too complex if the contingency it is triggered off of is too complex? Because if so my argument still stands, the act of observing an occurrence does not vary in complexity based on how complex the events that brought about the occurrence are, and that is all you are required to do.


How about if it is indirectly triggered by another contingency failing? Say, for example, I have a contingency "Cast shield if someone throws a rock at me." Then Bob the wizard's complex contingency fails, which drives him into a rage, and he picks up a rock and throws it at the nearest person (that happens to be me) because he is angry at his complex contingency failing.


The contingency is indeed omniscient. That doesn't mean it will go off however.

Why not? The task at hand is neither complex nor convoluted, which is the only RAW provision for the spell not going off. I suppose the DM could argue that trying to read the mind of a powerful entity on another plane is "complex" simply because it is such an impressive feat, and that would probably be the right call from a balance perspective, but I don't think that is either RAW or RAI.

[Psyren]

I'm sorry, I am having trouble following your logic.

Are you are saying that it is the act of involving two contingencies that makes something "too complex or convoluted?"

So, for example, if I had a contingency set to go off when Bob the wizard cast's haste on himself, that is a-ok.

But if Bob the wizard cast haste on himself with a contingency of his own, my contingency is now too complex and will fail?

If his haste came from a contingency and your contingency was dependent on his contingency firing or failing, then yes, I would consider than complicated. As I said several posts back, I consider any nested contingency at all to be "complicated."

But the beauty of all this is that "complicated" is up to each GM to determine. I have drawn the line at nested contingencies; you have not. That's perfectly okay, all I wanted was to point out that the GM has the tools to rein it in if they choose.

It's a lot like Simulacrum and the GM having to decide what abilities the half-HD replica will possess. What can an efreet simulacrum do? You need a ruling here too.



Why not? The task at hand is neither complex nor convoluted, which is the only RAW provision for the spell not going off. I suppose the DM could argue that trying to read the mind of a powerful entity on another plane is "complex" simply because it is such an impressive feat, and that would probably be the right call from a balance perspective, but I don't think that is either RAW or RAI.

RAW in this case is up to the GM as stated, because there is no game definition for either of the fail conditions.

As far as RAI - for nested contingencies, I think that if RAI was that you could do that, there would not be a prohibition against more than one contingency per spellcaster.

For detecting triggers regardless of distance or plane - that one I consider to be complex mechanically, because it's up to me to decide how the mechanics of that would actually work. Here again, I accept that you may not.

[Talakeal]

If his haste came from a contingency and your contingency was dependent on his contingency firing or failing, then yes, I would consider than complicated. As I said several posts back, I consider any nested contingency at all to be "complicated."
.

Ok them, I guess we can leave it at that.

The only thing I would like to add, you might want to say that it is the "contingent" part of the nested contingencies that is the problem. So, for example, a contingency set to go off when "haste" is cast would work regardless of whether or not haste was cast with a contingency. It is only if spells which require the haste (or any other spell) be cast with contingency that you start getting into complex tasks. Otherwise you can get people using contingencies to intentionally foul up those of their opponent's.

[Segev]

IF you have a contingency set to trigger off of "Psyren is hasted," then it wouldn't matter how he got hasted; it would trigger when it happened. Psyren could cast it on himself, have a friend cast it, or have a contingency of his own trigger it; when he becomes hasted, your contengency would trigger. This is straight-forward.

If you have a contingency set to trigger off of "Psyren casts haste on himself," then it would trigger only if Psyren is the one casting it and Psyren is (at least one of) the target(s). This is a moderately more complex one, as it requires noting not only who is hasted, but who cast it. If Psyren's haste came from a contingency of his own, it becomes a question of whether that counts as Psyren casting haste on himself, or not. The contingency triggered it, so is it Psyren who cast it?

This is where it would fail, because it would not know unambiguously that its condition had been met. So it would linger, waiting for the next time Psyren cast haste on himself directly.

It "failed," but didn't "fizzle." It's still there. We're really not even sure it's a failure. If you really would have liked it to have triggered, you can count it as one. But that would require you to know that a situation where you'd have liked it to trigger came up...and that the trigger failed.

Now, you could set your own "tricky" trigger to "when I realize that another trigger has failed," but now we're back to your judgment call as to whether you believe it should have worked. Which means you may as well have set it to a condition that you control, like uttering a specific word or phrase. ("When I realize" does make it so that it goes off instantly rather than as an action, but it also means if you're fooled and "realize" something false...) Regardless, it ties it to your judgment, but requires your awareness.

[Psyren]

The only thing I would like to add, you might want to say that it is the "contingent" part of the nested contingencies that is the problem. So, for example, a contingency set to go off when "haste" is cast would work regardless of whether or not haste was cast with a contingency. It is only if spells which require the haste (or any other spell) be cast with contingency that you start getting into complex tasks. Otherwise you can get people using contingencies to intentionally foul up those of their opponent's.

I'm okay with that, except that again, I don't feel a haste cast halfway around the world should be able to successfully trigger a contingency. Any means I can think of for the contingency to notice that (Astral plane surveillance? Querying the god of magic's master database? Vibration in the Weave itself?) would be, in my view, "complicated."

Whereas if it gets that information from a simpler source - the caster's own senses, or being in their general vicinity - I think that would be okay.

[Hrugner]

Which in the end would require that we have some sort of sensors, knowledge and perception skills available to contingency to limit what is complex for the contingency and what is not. Can we just bucket someone in lead and prevent them from setting of contingencies, use mindblank, or just have them step to the ethereal plane? Without any sort of limits on what is normal for the spell, it's hard to indicate what would be a special exception.

Cause right now I'm looking at a contingency to teleport me to any "ivory statuette of a spell caster worth 1,500 gp" created within range in order to get a monopoly on contingency spells.

edit: sorry, teleport me to, not to me.

[Segev]

Which in the end would require that we have some sort of sensors, knowledge and perception skills available to contingency to limit what is complex for the contingency and what is not. Can we just bucket someone in lead and prevent them from setting of contingencies, use mindblank, or just have them step to the ethereal plane? Without any sort of limits on what is normal for the spell, it's hard to indicate what would be a special exception.

Cause right now I'm looking at a contingency to teleport me to any "ivory statuette of a spell caster worth 1,500 gp" created within range in order to get a monopoly on contingency spells.

edit: sorry, teleport me to, not to me.

Since you can't have that many contingencies - even with the magic item - active at once, and any spellcaster you sprang this on is still likely to be able to survive the encounter, it's probable that you'd wind up getting yourself into some major spellcaster duels rather than actually getting a monopoly on anything.

Also - and this is a flaw in my own teleport-based schemes involving contignency, as well - you have not likely seen the destination, so you've got a high mishap chance.

[Hrugner]

Honestly, there's a bigger problem. There's no reason to believe you can plug information from the trigger into the spell being cast, we tend to on this site but it's not explicitly stated. The spell should probably have all it's parameters set on casting. It's a spell that has to effect you, so that's all written out, but the spell is also "cast" along with the contingency, so you'd need to have some modifiable agent in there to make it respond to the situation of the spell.

[ryu]

Which in the end would require that we have some sort of sensors, knowledge and perception skills available to contingency to limit what is complex for the contingency and what is not. Can we just bucket someone in lead and prevent them from setting of contingencies, use mindblank, or just have them step to the ethereal plane? Without any sort of limits on what is normal for the spell, it's hard to indicate what would be a special exception.

Cause right now I'm looking at a contingency to teleport me to any "ivory statuette of a spell caster worth 1,500 gp" created within range in order to get a monopoly on contingency spells.

edit: sorry, teleport me to, not to me.

Problem: Craft contingent spells use no physical medium save the creature they're affixed to and are superior to the contingency spell in every way. This plan does nothing to stop people who demand contingent effects.

[Psyren]

Problem: Craft contingent spells use no physical medium save the creature they're affixed to and are superior to the contingency spell in every way. This plan does nothing to stop people who demand contingent effects.

As this is a PF thread however, those don't exist

[ryu]

As this is a PF thread however, those don't exist

Now that's strange. I didn't know they ported contingency. Eh down to the fact I don't pathfinder much.

Still this plan has the problem that used to the extreme mentioned intelligent people while notice the pattern and use that for all sorts of awful traps. Never have a consistent rule for how to attack wizards. That just begs for trouble.