Contingent hostile spell on a normally-friendly target.

[Elkad]

This is a semi-CvC consideration (it's CvC - not PvP - until your players are brawling in the yard and/or crying).

Say I know the campaign is going to be full of dominate/possession/confusion.
I can try to defend against it with Protection from Evil, etc, but that won't be foolproof.

I'm looking for a way to disable a character. With his full knowledge and consent when I set it up, but not when I trigger it.
So when the Barbarian fails a will save I can clap my hands and paralyze him.

The Firefly scene where River goes whacko in the bar and is disabled by a post-hypnotic trigger word is a good example.

Ideally with no save (or with the character voluntarily failing his save at setup time).

Disabling (paralysis, sleep, etc) is only a preference. I'll settle for his head exploding if that is the only option. Plenty of Barbarians out there to recruit.

[heavyfuel]

This is a semi-CvC consideration (it's CvC - not PvP - until your players are brawling in the yard and/or crying).

Say I know the campaign is going to be full of dominate/possession/confusion.
I can try to defend against it with Protection from Evil, etc, but that won't be foolproof.

I'm looking for a way to disable a character. With his full knowledge and consent when I set it up, but not when I trigger it.
So when the Barbarian fails a will save I can clap my hands and paralyze him.

The Firefly scene where River goes whacko in the bar and is disabled by a post-hypnotic trigger word is a good example.

Ideally with no save (or with the character voluntarily failing his save at setup time).

Disabling (paralysis, sleep, etc) is only a preference. I'll settle for his head exploding if that is the only option. Plenty of Barbarians out there to recruit.

What "CvC" even stand for?

Mark of Justice might work. Choose for it to trigger when the target is dominated.

[Elkad]

Character vs Character.

Player vs Player is a terrible term.

Mark of Justice is useful-ish. But -4 to hit isn't going to keep the Wizard alive when the Confused Barbarian uberpounces him.
I'd rather he just fell asleep.
Edit: I guess you can create your own curse and argue that falling unconscious isn't more powerful

[heavyfuel]

Edit: I guess you can create your own curse and argue that falling unconscious isn't more powerful

Poison is a 3rd level spell that deals an average of 11 Con damage, half immediately, half a minute later. The target gets 2 Fortitude Saves, though they are more difficult than your average one. I'd say Poison, a 3rd level spell, is definitely a stronger curse than one of the standard curses (-6 to Con).

By this token, a Deep Slumber spell, also a 3rd level spell, should also be considered stronger. Making the target helpless is a very strong condition.

Forcing a different condition, such as the Blinded condition might be better. Blindness/Deafness is a 2nd level spell, which is much more in line.

[ATalsen]

Character vs Character.

Player vs Player is a terrible term.

Player vs Player is a perfectly accurate description of most instances of conflict between PCs within DnD.

In most cases the conflict is NOT limited to the fiction, and it is indeed at least partly a conflict between the players at the table. If it were not, then typically there would not BE any conflict at all.

Character vs Character is a great description of conflict entirely within the fiction - which is why I suspect its used in (literature) writing. You can easily get "CvC" without "PvP" when there is only one author. Its rarer, but in shared-fiction games, where you are encouraged to talk things thru in the metagame to ensure that all parties are happy with the game flow, you could gather agreement to have two characters conflict without the players themselves being in conflict, but that requires special circumstances.

I do understand that in THIS case you are specifying that the 'conflict' is mutually agreed on, but I can't even see this as a case of "CvC" the way you seem to intend it - the other Player/PC, when in 'sound mind' are agreeing to some magical preventive measures. That's just plain cooperation.


---

That said, Resilient Sphere is typically a good spell choice for disabling any target for a while; it also protects them, which seems like a plus in this case.

[BowStreetRunner]

At what level are you doing this? Is a 6th level Contingency actually an option? Or are you looking for a way to set this up some other way?

[Falontani]

Contingent Dominate Person. Contingent Greater Command. Bestow Greater Curse. Contingent Hold Person. Should all work. For lower level spells

[Nifft]

I've allowed Contingent-crafted bestow curse (and such) on planar bound critters.

[Elkad]

Player vs Player is a perfectly accurate description of most instances of conflict between PCs within DnD.

In most cases the conflict is NOT limited to the fiction, and it is indeed at least partly a conflict between the players at the table. If it were not, then typically there would not BE any conflict at all.

Character vs Character is a great description of conflict entirely within the fiction - which is why I suspect its used in (literature) writing. You can easily get "CvC" without "PvP" when there is only one author. Its rarer, but in shared-fiction games, where you are encouraged to talk things thru in the metagame to ensure that all parties are happy with the game flow, you could gather agreement to have two characters conflict without the players themselves being in conflict, but that requires special circumstances.

I do understand that in THIS case you are specifying that the 'conflict' is mutually agreed on, but I can't even see this as a case of "CvC" the way you seem to intend it - the other Player/PC, when in 'sound mind' are agreeing to some magical preventive measures. That's just plain cooperation.

I disagree. I've seen a lot of character vs character combat, and it turning into a player vs player problem is exceedingly rare. Even in the event of a particularly nasty and unrecoverable death, I've never seen it carry over to the replacement character, which it would if there was a player grudge.

Domination always hints of CvC. Not the countermeasures, the act of the DM handing you a note that says "You are Dominated. Act normally for now. When the fight starts, backstab the wizard." Followed by the whole party attempting to kill you.



At what level are you doing this? Is a 6th level Contingency actually an option? Or are you looking for a way to set this up some other way?

This is more of a thought exercise. No specific level in mind. Just trying to figure ways to disable a party member in a nearly foolproof method (ideally no-save) if it were to become necessary. Bonus if it's a freemediate action of some sort (as Mark of Justice would be).

[Raz Dazzle]

Corrupt spells are fantastic for this, because they have a corruption cost in unavoidable ability damage with every casting, and whoever activates one with an item (like a crafted contingent spell) pays the cost.

Devil's Tongue and Fangs of the Vampire King are great, both level 2 and deal 1d6 Strength and Wisdom damage, respectively.

[Segev]

If you're worried about magical control being exerted, I suggest contingent protection from evil, and, should that be insufficient, contingent greater dispel magic targeted on the guy. The trigger condition of a contingent spell can be anything that the bearer of the contingency could perceive. "When X violently opposes Y" would be a valid trigger, and, assuming you're 100% safe from being turned against him magically, would serve your purpose.

The protection from evil would suppress compulsions. The greater dispel magic would wipe clean any magical effect. Or at least, hopefully would. If he's hopped up on YOUR buffs and an enemy spell, at the LEAST the buffs auto-dispel since you put the dispel on him. So even if the enemy's controlling magic isn't gone, he's not turning your own magics against you.

[Elkad]

Contingent Greater Dispel doesn't come online until 18th, by which time everyone should have layered Mind Blank type defenses anyway. Or just be adventuring on their Astral Projections while their real body lounges on the couch back at the demi-plane.

I like the Mark idea. It's reasonably low level, and if I can get Blindness on it, that is pretty close to disabled. Silence (also L2, so probably viable) on a caster is more problematic, as it would shut him down, but would also affect others around him.
Is there a spell that prevents the target from casting? Glue his lips shut or something?

Works on Domination, Confusion, or just plain bribing him to turn on the party, it doesn't care. And no-save.

If there was a way to forfeit your save while casting the Contingent Hold Person/Bands of Steel/ Deep Slumber instead of when the contingency fires (where you wouldn't want to fail), that would be excellent as well. But I can't think of a way to do that.

[Uncle Pine]

You don't need to apply Contingency to Dominate Person to use it in this situation: the spell on its own can be an effective protection against enchantment effects as part of your daily/weekly routine, although it requires a good amount of trust between the members of the party.

In an ideal case every Monday the wizard would go around the table casting Dominate Person on each other member of the party after asking them to fail their saves, then ordering each of them to "do whatever they'd normally do as if they weren't dominated". The group can then move on to normal adventuring, with the extra protection of being able to reign in any frenzied barbarian failing his Will save or the like. In addition, if any of them is the target of an enchantment spell and fail his save, the wizard gets an extra check to retain "control" over them.

[Jack_Simth]

If you have access to Craft Contingent Spell....
Hideous Laughter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/hideousLaughter.htm) is cheap, and target's the barbarian's weak save.
Resilient Sphere (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resilientSphere.htm) will keep him safe, and targets a low save (Reflex).
Irresistable Dance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/irresistibleDance.htm) is solid, but doesn't last long.
Maze (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/maze.htm) gets him out of the fight VERY effectively - especially if he has a sub-10 Int (common barbarian dump stat).

If you want to skip the crafting costs (or if Craft Contingent Spell isn't available):
Have a party Bard or Sorcerer use Dominate Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm) on the barbarian first. Opposed orders from multiple mental control effects call for a Charisma check - but it's also an opposed check, so Moment of Prescience (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/momentOfPrescience.htm) will help for a round if you don't have a party Bard or Sorcerer with the spell.
Mark of Justice (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/markOfJustice.htm) is essentially a contingent spell - set it for if he attacks someone in the party or some such. The -4 to basically all checks (or perhaps a stronger penalty to just attack rolls? Talk to your DM) or the 50% chance of losing an action are the winners there.

[heavyfuel]

Opposed orders from multiple mental control effects call for a Charisma check

Did this rule make it into the SRD? I remember it existing, but couldn't find it on the website.

[Jack_Simth]

Did this rule make it into the SRD? I remember it existing, but couldn't find it on the website.

It's in the Magic Overview (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#combiningMagicalEffects), part of Combining Magical Effects:

Multiple Mental Control Effects

Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as a spell that removes the subjects ability to act. Mental controls that don’t remove the recipient’s ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.

[Elkad]

Bards and Sorcerers tend to be pretty rare at my tables. (As is anything else with a Cha higher than 8, except for the occasional Paladin)

So conflicting Dominates is going to go the Vampire with it's innate +4 Cha about 75% of the time.

[Jack_Simth]

Bards and Sorcerers tend to be pretty rare at my tables. (As is anything else with a Cha higher than 8, except for the occasional Paladin)

So conflicting Dominates is going to go the Vampire with it's innate +4 Cha about 75% of the time.

So you'll want to keep Moment of Prescience (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/momentOfPrescience.htm) available then, for "This spell grants you an insight bonus equal to your caster level (maximum +25) on any single attack roll, opposed ability or skill check, or saving throw." (emphasis added)

Assuming you're that high of a level, of course.

You can also pick up a Luckstone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#stoneofGoodLuckLuckstone) (+1 Luck to ability checks, among other things), and dig out the Magic Item Comendium's clause on adding "common effects" to other items, and thus add a Cloak of Charisma (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#cloakofCharisma) effect to the Cloak of Resistance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#cloakofResistance) you probably already have, and a Circlet of Persuasion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#circletofPersuasion) (+3 Competence to Charisma checks) effect to your pre-existing headband of intellect (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#headbandofIntellect). That'll get you up to +7 just for those.

Note that those items are also useful if you engage in any Planar Binding (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarBindingLesser.htm), for it too uses a Charisma check.

[Crake]

couldn't you just do a contingent antimagic field?

[Nifft]

couldn't you just do a contingent antimagic field?



Area: 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you


On yourself? Sure.

On someone else? Not likely.

[Uncle Pine]

On yourself? Sure.

On someone else? Not likely.

You can use Craft Contingent Spell to place a contingency based on a Personal spell on someone else, or a spellblade of Contingency to redirect one to someone else.

[Nifft]

You can use Craft Contingent Spell to place a contingency based on a Personal spell on someone else, or a spellblade of Contingency to redirect one to someone else.

Show me where you see AMF being defined as "Personal"?

[Uncle Pine]

Show me where you see AMF being defined as "Personal"?

Whoops, my bad for not double check whether a Target line was present. Still, neither Craft Contingent Spell (which works with any spell) nor a spellblade (which requires a targeted spell, which Contingency is) of Contingency (which requires a spell that "affects your person") require antimagic field to target you so both methods work regardless of my oversight.

Note that Contingency also requires a CL of 18 to be paired with AMF.

[Crake]

I was indeed referring to crafting a contingent AMF to be triggered whenever the subject is magically compromised. Or I guess, when the wizard speaks a command word, or whatever.

[Nifft]

Whoops, my bad for not double check whether a Target line was present. Still, neither Craft Contingent Spell (which works with any spell) nor a spellblade (which requires a targeted spell, which Contingency is) of Contingency (which requires a spell that "affects your person") require antimagic field to target you so both methods work regardless of my oversight.

Note that Contingency also requires a CL of 18 to be paired with AMF. Contingency shouldn't work with a Spellblade for two separate reasons, and AMF shouldn't be re-directable by a Spellblade period.


I was indeed referring to crafting a contingent AMF to be triggered whenever the subject is magically compromised. Or I guess, when the wizard speaks a command word, or whatever. Yeah it looks like you can craft a Contingent anything you want, so that appears to be viable.

Furthermore, apparently Contingent craft spells are tethered to the body, not necessary a living body, so when you re-animate your lost companions they can become self-propelled undead AMF zones.

[Uncle Pine]

Contingency shouldn't work with a Spellblade for two separate reasons, and AMF shouldn't be re-directable by a Spellblade period.


The wielder of a spellblade weapon is immune to a single spell chosen at the time the weapon is created. The selected spell must be one that is targeted against the wielder, not one that affects an area or creates an effect. When the wielder is next subjected to the chosen spell, the weapon absorbs it. On his next turn, he can opt to either let the spell drain harmlessly away or direct it at a new target as a free action.


Evocation
Level: Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M, F
Casting Time: At least 10 minutes; see text
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: One day/level (D) or until discharged

You can place another spell upon your person so that it comes into effect under some condition you dictate when casting contingency. The contingency spell and the companion spell are cast at the same time. The 10-minute casting time is the minimum total for both castings; if the companion spell has a casting time longer than 10 minutes, use that instead.
The way I see it, when you cast Contingency you're actually casting Contingency (spell to be put in the contingency), much in the same way as you do for Arcane Fusion and the like. Therefore, since Contingency is a valid target for a spellblade, Contingency (AMF) could be redirected as well. The two spells are even cast at the same time, so I didn't think the issue would be open to other interpretations.

[Nifft]

The way I see it, when you cast Contingency you're actually casting Contingency (spell to be put in the contingency), much in the same way as you do for Arcane Fusion and the like. Therefore, since Contingency is a valid target for a spellblade, Contingency (AMF) could be redirected as well. The two spells are even cast at the same time, so I didn't think the issue would be open to other interpretations.

Contingency isn't a valid target for Spellblade because a Contingency spell is never cast against you, only by you (and for you). It's highly questionable whether you can cast any spell ~against~ yourself, at least if you're in control of your own actions.

AMF isn't a valid target for Spellblade either, of course, since it's an emanation and not a creature-targeted spell. The Contingency spell doesn't change that -- your quote should have been clear, it's in the paragraph you underlined:

You can place another spell upon your person so that it comes into effect under some condition you dictate when casting contingency. The contingency spell and the companion spell are cast at the same time. The 10-minute casting time is the minimum total for both castings; if the companion spell has a casting time longer than 10 minutes, use that instead.
The only changes to the companion spell are the casting time, if it was previously less than 10 minutes, and the starting time -- which is deferred until the Contingency conditions are met. There's no change in targeting. Both spells are cast; there's no unification into a single different spell.


Contingency also isn't compatible with Antimagic Field, per the text of Contingency after what your quoted:


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).

[Lapak]

You don't need to apply Contingency to Dominate Person to use it in this situation: the spell on its own can be an effective protection against enchantment effects as part of your daily/weekly routine, although it requires a good amount of trust between the members of the party.
This does, however, set up a pretty spectacular single point of failure for the party. If the Dominating wizard rolls a 1 on a Will save, or gets suborned, or blackmailed, or even just tricked, you've set YOURSELF up for a TPK.

[Nifft]

This does, however, set up a pretty spectacular single point of failure for the party. If the Dominating wizard rolls a 1 on a Will save, or gets suborned, or blackmailed, or even just tricked, you've set YOURSELF up for a TPK.

After the TPK, your new party can go find the old party's bones and use their contingent spells as grenades.

[Crake]

This does, however, set up a pretty spectacular single point of failure for the party. If the Dominating wizard rolls a 1 on a Will save, or gets suborned, or blackmailed, or even just tricked, you've set YOURSELF up for a TPK.

Or the wizard can have similar contingencies on himself that automatically trigger when he's magically compromised?

[Uncle Pine]

Contingency isn't a valid target for Spellblade because a Contingency spell is never cast against you, only by you (and for you). It's highly questionable whether you can cast any spell ~against~ yourself, at least if you're in control of your own actions.
You can stab yourself with a knife. You can hit yourself with a scorching ray. You can even dominate yourself! The target of a Contingency spell is you and spellblades redirects spells that target you. I don't really see the point of a read so finicky it requires you to cast against your will to have a spellblade work on yourself.

But if you do, cast Dominate Person on someone else holding a spellblade before starting your party-wide buffing routine with Contingency.


AMF isn't a valid target for Spellblade either, of course, since it's an emanation and not a creature-targeted spell. The Contingency spell doesn't change that -- your quote should have been clear, it's in the paragraph you underlined: The only changes to the companion spell are the casting time, if it was previously less than 10 minutes, and the starting time -- which is deferred until the Contingency conditions are met. There's no change in targeting. Both spells are cast; there's no unification into a single different spell.
You aren't using a spellblade of AMF, but a spellblade of Contingency: you cast Contingency and it gets redirected. The companion spell (whatever it is) carries along.



Contingency also isn't compatible with Antimagic Field, per the text of Contingency after what your quoted:
Antimagic Field is an emanation centered on you and it affects you as well as anyone else in the area (bar constructs, walls of force, etc.). If you happen to be a wall of force, you can't combine AMF and Contingency even if your CL is higher than 18.

[Nifft]

You can stab yourself with a knife. You can hit yourself with a scorching ray. You can even dominate yourself! The target of a Contingency spell is you and spellblades redirects spells that target you. I don't really see the point of a read so finicky it requires you to cast against your will to have a spellblade work on yourself.

Spellblade: The wielder is immune to a single spell chosen at the time the weapon is created. The chosen spell must be one that is targeted against the wielder (not a spell that affects an area). When the wielder is subjected to the spell, the weapon absorbs the spell. On the wielder’s next turn, she can opt to let the spell drain harmlessly away or direct the spell at a new target as a free action.

Caster Level: 13th; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, spell turning; Market Price: +1 bonus.

I see immunity to a spell which is targeted against the wielder as intended to apply to hostile spells.

That's really not finicky. It's just upholding the item's very obvious intent.


The idea that you can use a Spellblade to ping-pong arbitrary self-only effects onto your friends is what requires an exceptional and convoluted reading, which I'm guessing you got from a theoretical optimization thread -- in those, it's fine to play around with how you can do whatever the rules don't explicitly prohibit. But this isn't a TO thread, so that sort of silliness isn't appropriate here.



You aren't using a spellblade of AMF, but a spellblade of Contingency: you cast Contingency and it gets redirected. The companion spell (whatever it is) carries along. Contingency says the opposite: both spells get cast, which means both spells are separate entities as far as Contingency is concerned.



Antimagic Field is an emanation centered on you and it affects you as well as anyone else in the area (bar constructs, walls of force, etc.). Antimagic Field doesn't affect your person unless you're made of magic, and from a strict perspective it affects more than your person, so it's invalid on two fronts: by both your idea of a "finicky" read, and also my idea of a strict read (which is that you can only Contingency things that are limited to affecting your person, not which inclusively affect anything in the world plus also affect your person).

IMHO the strict reading is the better reading, but if you prefer to see things in "finicky" terms then the other one might be more persuasive for you.

[Uncle Pine]

I see immunity to a spell which is targeted against the wielder as intended to apply to hostile spells.

That's really not finicky. It's just upholding the item's very obvious intent.


The idea that you can use a Spellblade to ping-pong arbitrary self-only effects onto your friends is what requires an exceptional and convoluted reading, which I'm guessing you got from a theoretical optimization thread -- in those, it's fine to play around with how you can do whatever the rules don't explicitly prohibit. But this isn't a TO thread, so that sort of silliness isn't appropriate here.
To be honest the first time I saw spellblades mentioned was in that thread about ping-ponging magic missiles, so with an offensive spell. Then I looked at the item and hey, noticed you could use it to redirect any spell, not just hostile ones! I hardly see it mentioned as a way to buff friendly characters by putting it on a dagger/gauntlet and only wielding the weapon when you don't need to target yourself with the spell in question around the forums, as it's generally just brought up in dispel magic threads to actually get immune to those (since there isn't a ton of other options against, although there are a few). I feel a better use of spellblades in a TO setting would be to dump NI gp to be immune to every targeted spell, period.

Regardless of that, I feel like "finicky" ticked you off so sorry for that. I wasn't trying to be annoying, I just found that basing a whole argument on the fact spellblade says "against" nitpicking, considering d&d has the good habit of being overtly specific when it comes to differentiate hostile and non-hostile effects or spells and a target is a target (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#targetorTargets). It's just... there. If you don't agree on it, we can move on for the sake of the thread and stick to listing Craft Contingent Spell as a solution, since you seem to approve on that.


Contingency says the opposite: both spells get cast, which means both spells are separate entities as far as Contingency is concerned.
So if you redirect Contingency, the trigger affects the new target but when it's triggered the companion spell is cast on you?


Antimagic Field doesn't affect your person unless you're made of magic, and from a strict perspective it affects more than your person, so it's invalid on two fronts: by both your idea of a "finicky" read, and also my idea of a strict read (which is that you can only Contingency things that are limited to affecting your person, not which inclusively affect anything in the world plus also affect your person).

IMHO the strict reading is the better reading, but if you prefer to see things in "finicky" terms then the other one might be more persuasive for you.
First off, a nitpick (this time on my part): Contingency doesn't restrict you to spells that only affect you. Any spell is kosher, as long as it also affects you. For example, you could place a Fireball centered on you in a Contingency.

That said, rereading AMF and antimagic rules in the Rules Compendium makes me think you're right on this one:

An antimagic fi eld spell or effect suppresses magic, but it doesn’t dispel that magic. Once a magical effect is no longer affected by antimagic, the magic returns. Spells that still have part of
their duration left begin functioning again, magic items are once again useful, and so forth. Two antimagic areas in the same place don’t cancel each other, nor do they stack. An antimagic effect interacts with several game elements in different ways.

[Crake]

The problem with spellblades is that they're a 1 time use effect for 5,000gp, so when you use it, you'd better make sure it's worthwhile.

[Uncle Pine]

The problem with spellblades is that they're a 1 time use effect for 5,000gp, so when you use it, you'd better make sure it's worthwhile.
Spellblades are reusable. You're thinking about luckblades (the ones that let you cast wish).

[Crake]

Spellblades are reusable. You're thinking about luckblades (the ones that let you cast wish).

No, I'm thinking about spellblades. Read how it's worded. It says "When the wielder is next subjected to the chosen spell, the weapon absorbs it." Not each time, or whenever subjected, the next time. It's a single use effect.

Also consider it's price: a single use, use activated spell turning (which is about the closest analogue you can get to the effect, and also the spell needed to craft it) is 7*13*50gp, or about 4,550gp. Added to a weapon, it's doubled for being a "slotless" item (as all weapon special abilities are), plus an additional 50% for being an additional enchantment (as all flat priced enchantments are on weapons and armor). This brings it's price up to 13,650gp. We can then cut the price significantly down, since the effect is limited only to a single spell chosen at the time of crafting, and it's spell level having no bearing (you can't reflect 7-10 magic missiles, but you can guarantee reflecting a power word kill, even though spell turning is 7-10 spell levels). Halving it makes it an ugly 6825, and thirding it makes it 4550gp again, so taking the middle ground and rounding to a neat number brings you back to about 5,000gp.

Clearly a single use effect.

[Uncle Pine]

No, I'm thinking about spellblades. Read how it's worded. It says "When the wielder is next subjected to the chosen spell, the weapon absorbs it." Not each time, or whenever subjected, the next time. It's a single use effect.

Also consider it's price: a single use, use activated spell turning (which is about the closest analogue you can get to the effect, and also the spell needed to craft it) is 7*13*50gp, or about 4,550gp. Added to a weapon, it's doubled for being a "slotless" item (as all weapon special abilities are), plus an additional 50% for being an additional enchantment (as all flat priced enchantments are on weapons and armor). This brings it's price up to 13,650gp. We can then cut the price significantly down, since the effect is limited only to a single spell chosen at the time of crafting, and it's spell level having no bearing (you can't reflect 7-10 magic missiles, but you can guarantee reflecting a power word kill, even though spell turning is 7-10 spell levels). Halving it makes it an ugly 6825, and thirding it makes it 4550gp again, so taking the middle ground and rounding to a neat number brings you back to about 5,000gp.

Clearly a single use effect.
Here's the interesting part: Magic of Faerun (3.0) had spellblade listed as a +1 enchantment without the "next" bit part, but in PGtF (3.5) spellblade is now +6000 gp and has that wording. So as much as I'd like it the other way and still find odd they wouldn't put something about it being discharged after a single use like in other magic items that work similarly, poop really hit the rotating vanes for spellblades in 3.5e. Thanks for pointing it out, and rip buffing party members. :smallfrown:

[Nifft]

To be honest the first time I saw spellblades mentioned was in that thread about ping-ponging magic missiles, so with an offensive spell. Then I looked at the item and hey, noticed you could use it to redirect any spell, not just hostile ones! I hardly see it mentioned as a way to buff friendly characters by putting it on a dagger/gauntlet and only wielding the weapon when you don't need to target yourself with the spell in question around the forums, as it's generally just brought up in dispel magic threads to actually get immune to those (since there isn't a ton of other options against, although there are a few). I feel a better use of spellblades in a TO setting would be to dump NI gp to be immune to every targeted spell, period.

Regardless of that, I feel like "finicky" ticked you off so sorry for that. I wasn't trying to be annoying, I just found that basing a whole argument on the fact spellblade says "against" nitpicking, considering d&d has the good habit of being overtly specific when it comes to differentiate hostile and non-hostile effects or spells and a target is a target (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#targetorTargets). It's just... there. If you don't agree on it, we can move on for the sake of the thread and stick to listing Craft Contingent Spell as a solution, since you seem to approve on that. Well, it's more than just that one word. It's the first sentence, and the word, and then later stuff -- like how you can either re-direct the spell or drain it away "harmlessly". The entry is written as if the spellblade catches harmful spells, and that seems to be pervasive throughout the enhancement text.

The idea that you can use a defense as a utility is the reading which requires a technicality.

Since you were using a mathematical / technical perspective to justify your reading, I'd thought that using a technicality ("against") would suit your way of thinking. It did seem rather obnoxious that you'd disparage the type of thinking which underwrote your thesis.



So if you redirect Contingency, the trigger affects the new target but when it's triggered the companion spell is cast on you? That would be a hole in the rules.

Maybe Contingency returns a call-with-current-continuation, with a pointer to the contingent spell trammeled up behind an if-gate. In that case, you'd re-direct a continuation with a null pointer (since the contingent spell wasn't re-directed), plus you'd have an uncallable spell pointer hanging around your own soul until you undergo divine garbage collection / memory compaction.

But probably what happens is that the DM just says, "No, you're already a Wizard with amazing toys, you don't need to make up new toys out of poor editing from a low-quality setting book."



First off, a nitpick (this time on my part): Contingency doesn't restrict you to spells that only affect you. Any spell is kosher, as long as it also affects you. For example, you could place a Fireball centered on you in a Contingency.

Not if you're immune to [Fire] when it goes off, or if you target it in a way that puts you outside the blast area. The spell can't affect your body, then what sort of temporal paradox have you invoked?

That's why hanging your hat on a technicality seems unsatisfying to me: you're claiming that any spell which can incidentally affect your body would qualify, and that's a mathematically technical reading, but it's not the central reading, and it's not okay to pretend that incidental technicalities are equally valid. They're not.

Futurama was a comedy. Technically correct isn't actually the best kind of correct.

[Jack_Simth]

This is a semi-CvC consideration (it's CvC - not PvP - until your players are brawling in the yard and/or crying).

Say I know the campaign is going to be full of dominate/possession/confusion.
I can try to defend against it with Protection from Evil, etc, but that won't be foolproof.

I'm looking for a way to disable a character. With his full knowledge and consent when I set it up, but not when I trigger it.
So when the Barbarian fails a will save I can clap my hands and paralyze him.

The Firefly scene where River goes whacko in the bar and is disabled by a post-hypnotic trigger word is a good example.

Ideally with no save (or with the character voluntarily failing his save at setup time).

Disabling (paralysis, sleep, etc) is only a preference. I'll settle for his head exploding if that is the only option. Plenty of Barbarians out there to recruit.

Hmm... thinking back on it, Craft Contingent Spell isn't suitable for your purposes; per Complete Arcane, page 139:

If the bearer of a contingent spell is the target of dispel magic, the contingent spell might be permanently dispelled (but not triggered), as if it were an active spell in effect on the target creature.

The contingency from Craft Contingent Spell is dispelable, exactly as easily as a Magic Circle Against Evil (easier, as part of the expense of a crafted contingent spell is the caster level, so you'll otherwise want to skimp on that).

Perhaps... instead of just putting Protection From Evil on the barbarian, you arrange for a Magic Circle Against Evil on everyone in the party. That protects the warded person... but also everyone within ten feet of any warded individual. Ten minute/level duration isn't too hard to keep up most of the day if you have Extend Spell or similar. When the Barbarian gets within ten feet of a party member... domination suppressed. As long as the barbarian doesn't generally use ranged weapons, that'll usually get what you want done.

You could also have him carry a Darkskull (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#darkskull). Yes, it's an evil item. However: Unhallow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/unhallow.htm) grants protection as Magic Circle Against Good (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicCircleAgainstGood.htm) for the entire area, and the inheritance chain is such that it stops mental domination regardless of the alignment of the dominator. Which is the effect you're after. In the case of failure (dispel on the Darkskull... but magic items need to be specifically targeted, so that's all that happens with that enemy action, and it's temporary at that) you can put something like a Mark of Justice, set to trigger on attacking a comrade in arms (or more than one, if the DM will permit it [potential issue in the Combining Magical Effects section of the magic overview, but I've yet to see a DM who likes that aspect]), as a Mark of Justice won't fall to a simple dispel.

[Elkad]

...

Perhaps... instead of just putting Protection From Evil on the barbarian, you arrange for a Magic Circle Against Evil on everyone in the party. That protects the warded person... but also everyone within ten feet of any warded individual. Ten minute/level duration isn't too hard to keep up most of the day if you have Extend Spell or similar. When the Barbarian gets within ten feet of a party member... domination suppressed. As long as the barbarian doesn't generally use ranged weapons, that'll usually get what you want done....

Fine for possession. Doesn't work for Confusion, pre-existing Magic Jar, Frenzy, plain old betrayal, and whatever else I missed (isn't there something similar to Baleful Transposition that covers both parties with an illusion so you don't know they traded?)

[Jack_Simth]

Fine for possession. Doesn't work for Confusion, pre-existing Magic Jar, Frenzy, plain old betrayal, and whatever else I missed (isn't there something similar to Baleful Transposition that covers both parties with an illusion so you don't know they traded?)
A Frenzied Berserker, specifically? You want Grease. During a Frenzy, an FB auto-fails Balance checks. He'll end up flopping around on the ground for a while. You can skip most the costs of doing that via grabbing a few copies of Celerity and Grease. For the other scenarios, the dispel problem still applies; again, Celerity is your friend. Add in a few nice Maze spells. No save, and a low-int type will be out of play for quite some time.

[Elkad]

A Frenzied Berserker, specifically? You want Grease. During a Frenzy, an FB auto-fails Balance checks. He'll end up flopping around on the ground for a while. You can skip most the costs of doing that via grabbing a few copies of Celerity and Grease. For the other scenarios, the dispel problem still applies; again, Celerity is your friend. Add in a few nice Maze spells. No save, and a low-int type will be out of play for quite some time.

And when the Wizard gets Confused? How is the Barbarian supposed to fix that short of killing him? Remember, he's probably in the middle of a fight too, so grappling the wizard means 2 people are out of the fight.

I really liked the Mark of Justice suggestion. Just need to get better effects on it.

[Jack_Simth]

And when the Wizard gets Confused? How is the Barbarian supposed to fix that short of killing him? Remember, he's probably in the middle of a fight too, so grappling the wizard means 2 people are out of the fight.

I really liked the Mark of Justice suggestion. Just need to get better effects on it.
The effects are based on Bestow Curse, which includes the line "You may also invent your own curse, but it should be no more powerful than those described above." - and 50% chance of losing your action is pretty powerful. So for the Wizard or Cleric, you could use "unable to speak" and suddenly no verbal component spells (which is most of them). For the Barbarian, you could maybe do a curse of calming (can't be angry) or make him unable to use manufactured weapons. Or maybe the "curse of mercy" forcing him to always deal nonlethal (a -4 penalty to attack rolls).

As for the Wizard getting confused? Most of the effects you're worried about (mental control) are Will saves. The Wizard has a good Will save progression, so it's a lot less likely for the party Wizard. However, you also have the party Cleric or Druid, generally, and thus another character with an even better will save who can also cast things like (Greater) Dispel Magic or Break Enchantment.

[Crake]

The effects are based on Bestow Curse, which includes the line "You may also invent your own curse, but it should be no more powerful than those described above." - and 50% chance of losing your action is pretty powerful. So for the Wizard or Cleric, you could use "unable to speak" and suddenly no verbal component spells (which is most of them). For the Barbarian, you could maybe do a curse of calming (can't be angry) or make him unable to use manufactured weapons. Or maybe the "curse of mercy" forcing him to always deal nonlethal (a -4 penalty to attack rolls).

As for the Wizard getting confused? Most of the effects you're worried about (mental control) are Will saves. The Wizard has a good Will save progression, so it's a lot less likely for the party Wizard. However, you also have the party Cleric or Druid, generally, and thus another character with an even better will save who can also cast things like (Greater) Dispel Magic or Break Enchantment.

Wizards may have decent will progression, but they tend to have pretty poor wisdom, usually resulting in a fairly average will save.

[Elkad]

As for the Wizard getting confused? Most of the effects you're worried about (mental control) are Will saves. The Wizard has a good Will save progression, so it's a lot less likely for the party Wizard. However, you also have the party Cleric or Druid, generally, and thus another character with an even better will save who can also cast things like (Greater) Dispel Magic or Break Enchantment.

Failures happen. And the whole point of this exercise is to find a way to disable them without wasting actions. Even Celerity+Dispel requires a wasted action (barring combining it with Daze immunity, which is Mozzarella at least).

[Uncle Pine]

Let's take a step backward: what kind of mind-affecting opposition are you afraid of that wouldn't be stopped by every member of the party wearing an amulet of Protection from Evil under their clothes?

[Psyren]

Whatever you choose to call it (CvC, PvP, whatever) 3.x is poorly designed for it.

If you're hell-bent on doing this, Pathfinder has spells like Triggered Suggestion (lasts for days) or Unconscious Agenda (lasts for weeks) that let you implant long-term instructions. "Take a nap" would work as a course of action for both. Pass a note to the GM whenever you cast them so that the GM can ask them to roll the save and secretly note whether they made it or not.

As far as beating Pro:Evil, in Pathfinder that spell only suppresses compulsions from a matching aligned source, and Mind Blank isn't a hard counter either. In other words, if you're True Neutral, you have a pretty good chance of being able to compel those around you.

[Elkad]

...3.x is poorly designed for it....

That's pretty much the conclusion I'm coming to. If Mark of Justice is the best thing the combined community here can come up with (which is at least slightly useful), then this discussion is probably done.

Of course porting in PF spells like you mentioned, or custom spell research for a Greater Mark of Justice would help, but that's off in houserule territory. Which is fine for my own table (we have many dozens of custom spells collected over the decades)

[Crake]

Whatever you choose to call it (CvC, PvP, whatever) 3.x is poorly designed for it.

If you're hell-bent on doing this, Pathfinder has spells like Triggered Suggestion (lasts for days) or Unconscious Agenda (lasts for weeks) that let you implant long-term instructions. "Take a nap" would work as a course of action for both. Pass a note to the GM whenever you cast them so that the GM can ask them to roll the save and secretly note whether they made it or not.

As far as beating Pro:Evil, in Pathfinder that spell only suppresses compulsions from a matching aligned source, and Mind Blank isn't a hard counter either. In other words, if you're True Neutral, you have a pretty good chance of being able to compel those around you.

I think you're getting the wrong impression. This isn't being done due to character animosity, it's being done as a precaution to try and subdue friendlies when they've been compromised, all with the party's prior consent afaict.