Can you cast contingency revivify?

[Keeganwilson]

as the title says is the revivify spell a valid Target for this spell

[Aelyn]

I would say no. One of the requirements of the contingent spell is that it can target you, and at the time you cast Contingency, Revivify can't target you. It's therefore not a valid Contingent spell.

[Arkhios]

I would say no. One of the requirements of the contingent spell is that it can target you, and at the time you cast Contingency, Revivify can't target you. It's therefore not a valid Contingent spell.

And just how you cease to be you when you're dead?

I'd say that the above is flat out wrong.

The contingent spell's all effects and requirements are checked at the moment it's chosen to take effect, and as long as you've died within 1 minute of the contingent conditions, Revivify works on you as written.

[Aelyn]

And just how you cease to be you when you're dead?

I'd say that the above is flat out wrong.
... at the time you cast Contingency, you're not a valid target. As part of casting Contingency, you need to cast a spell that can target you. Is Revivify a spell that can target you at that time? No. It's therefore not a valid contingent spell.


The contingent spell's all effects and requirements are checked at the moment it's chosen to take effect, and as long as you've died within 1 minute of the contingent conditions, Revivify works on you as written.
Why do you conclude that the effects and requirements are only checked when Contingency triggers, rather than when it's cast?

[Arkhios]

... at the time you cast Contingency, you're not a valid target. As part of casting Contingency, you need to cast a spell that can target you. Is Revivify a spell that can target you at that time? No. It's therefore not a valid contingent spell.


Why do you conclude that the effects and requirements are only checked when Contingency triggers, rather than when it's cast?

I conclude so, because Contingency does not specify a requirement for when the contingent spell could be cast on you. You only assume it implies it has to be able to target you at the time of casting Contingency, but it really doesn't say anything of the sort.

You only choose the spell to be cast when the circumstance of your choosing is met, and expend the spell slots for both spells. That's it.

[Bobthewizard]

As far as RAW I think you could argue either way. If I were DM, I would allow it for sure. As far as I can tell, you could only do it with a bard using magical secrets for both spells. (It's not in front of me right now, maybe revivify was added to the bard list with the new variant UA so only one magical secrets slot if that's the case.)

Either way, it's a a lot of resources to pour into something that a couple classes and one race get already.

[Yunru]

I'd also point out that the resurrection spells are perfectly fine targeting living creatures, as long as they were recently dead.
So just cast Contingency Revivify after being revived for the first time.

[ThePolarBear]

as the title says is the revivify spell a valid Target for this spell

No, for the same reason that would bring you to not choose "Drive a car" when asked to "Choose which of these activities a 10 years old is allowed to do".


I conclude so, because Contingency does not specify a requirement for when the contingent spell could be cast on you. You only assume it implies it has to be able to target you at the time of casting Contingency, but it really doesn't say anything of the sort.

You only choose the spell to be cast when the circumstance of your choosing is met, and expend the spell slots for both spells. That's it.

It uses simple present.

"Choose a spell of 5th level or lower that you can cast, that has a casting time of 1 action, and that can target you."

Not "that will be able to be cast on you when the conditions apply."

Again, you would never say that a ten years old is allowed to drive a car, would you?


I'd also point out that the resurrection spells are perfectly fine targeting living creatures, as long as they were recently dead.
So just cast Contingency Revivify after being revived for the first time.

Not Revivify. It has to have died within the last minute. (edit for most castings of Contingency. There are some VERY specific exceptions.)

[Yunru]

Not Revivify. It has to have died within the last minute.
And? You can be alive and have died within a minute.

[Lupine]

you're not a valid target

Uhh. I'm not sure if you are going to like this but, I think you can cast it on yourself, it just has no effect at that time. Its like casting cure wounds on a creature that is at full health. It doesn't do anything, but you're not invalid.

[PhantomSoul]

Not Revivify. It has to have died within the last minute. (edit for most castings of Contingency. There are some VERY specific exceptions.)

I believe Yunru's referring to the fact that the Creature could have technically been revivified during that past minute.

Round n: death
Round n+1: revivify
Rounds n+2 to n+9: eligible for Revivify

[firelistener]

I'm all about RAW, but this one seems like it could go either way with a strict reading. I don't see it as being overpowered in any sense either. It only restores you with 1HP and requires at least Wizard level 11 and Cleric level 5. Very steep investment for a very slim chance of being helpful.

[JackPhoenix]

I believe Yunru's referring to the fact that the Creature could have technically been revivified during that past minute.

Round n: death
Round n+1: revivify
Rounds n+2 to n+9: eligible for Revivify

Which is less than helpful with Contingency's 10 minutes-long casting time.

[Yunru]

Which is less than helpful with Contingency's 10 minutes-long casting time.

Luckily you only have to be eligible at the start, AFAIK.

[ThePolarBear]

And? You can be alive and have died within a minute.


I believe Yunru's referring to the fact that the Creature could have technically been revivified during that past minute.

Round n: death
Round n+1: revivify
Rounds n+2 to n+9: eligible for Revivify

Yeah, i edited my post pretty much at the same time as Yunru posting recognizing the possibility in certain cases, which isn't really the "general situation" that happens most of the time. Yeah, you could be killed, be resurrected and at that point cast Contingency for Revivify. As a general use case however...

Edit: mind you... not that i agree that a caster is "a dead creature" at all for other spells.


Luckily you only have to be eligible at the start, AFAIK.

Not really. You have to be eligible at some unspecified time "as you are casting". Which is not that different.

[Aelyn]

I conclude so, because Contingency does not specify a requirement for when the contingent spell could be cast on you. You only assume it implies it has to be able to target you at the time of casting Contingency, but it really doesn't say anything of the sort.

You only choose the spell to be cast when the circumstance of your choosing is met, and expend the spell slots for both spells. That's it.

Actually, you do cast the contingent spell as part of casting Contingency - it just doesn't take effect yet - and Contingency explicitly states "Choose a spell... that you can cast... that can target you." That's why I say you need to be a valid target at the time Contingency is cast.


Uhh. I'm not sure if you are going to like this but, I think you can cast it on yourself, it just has no effect at that time. Its like casting cure wounds on a creature that is at full health. It doesn't do anything, but you're not invalid.

You are not (typically) a <creature that has died within the last minute>, therefore you are not a valid target for Revivify. Same reason you can't cast Knock[ on yourself - you aren't an <object that contains a magical or mundane means to prevent access>.


I believe Yunru's referring to the fact that the Creature could have technically been revivified during that past minute.

Round n: death
Round n+1: revivify
Rounds n+2 to n+9: eligible for Revivify

Contingency has a ten-minute cast time. Even if you die, get revived, and immediately start casting, you're not a valid target by the time you finish casting.

The only way around this issue - as far as I can tell - is Gentle Repose, since that effectively adds ten days to the one-minute time limit for Revivify. So if you die, have Gentle Repose cast on you within one minute, and are then brought back to life in less than nine days, twenty-three hours, and fifty minutes, then you will have a window to Contingency a Revivify on yourself. If you know both spells.

EDIT: I do grant that the question of "when in the casting of Contingency do you have to be a valid target" is a lot less clear, RAW, and can see the argument for beginning to cast Contingency Revivify immediately after being revived.

[Yunru]

As a general use, now that I've reread the spell, there is no restriction. Spells don't care about any restrictions their effect has, if you cast it you cast it, even if you can't do anything with it.

Edit: Which, on reflection, is self-evident. For instance, you're not always going to know how long they've been dead.
I forget the fancy name, but there's a proof where you switch the assumption then point out the logical fallacy in it. Applying that here:
We assume that you can't cast Revivify unless the target has died within a minute.
We come across a corpse in battle, time of death unknown.
We attempt to cast Revivify.
We now magically know whether he died within a minute because we either can or can't cast the spell.
In the event we can't, we now magically know this without having cast a spell. We haven't done anything, this is a contradiction.

And thus, I do prove my above point AND that I'm bad at explaining things.

[ThePolarBear]

As a general use, now that I've reread the spell, there is no restriction. Spells don't care about any restrictions their effect has, if you cast it you cast it, even if you can't do anything with it.

Edit: Which, on reflection, is self-evident. For instance, you're not always going to know how long they've been dead.

Which is why you can target the body, but the spell won't.


But that doesn't matter, the spell effect doesn't happen until the Contingency trigger.

Contingency requires a spell that can target you.


And it can, when you're dead. It doesn't say "that can target you now" after all.

And it doesn't need to. It's present, not future. Furthermore, it must be a spell that you can cast. So, since tomorrow i will memorize "Dispel Magic", i can put into a Contingency now, right?

We can go on in "Absurd territory" here Yunru. It's a present. It either means "as a general condition, ever true" or "now".

Edit: condensed different posts in a single one. In no way Yunru is multiposting - there were my posts in between theirs.

[Wraith]

As a general use, now that I've reread the spell, there is no restriction. Spells don't care about any restrictions their effect has, if you cast it you cast it, even if you can't do anything with it.

Edit: Which, on reflection, is self-evident. For instance, you're not always going to know how long they've been dead.

This is how I read it. You can ALWAYS cast a spell so long you have a target - if it's not a VALID target then the spell will fail, but you'll still lose the spell slot. It has "cast" but it doesn't "do" anything.

In the case of Revivify, you have a target - a creature within touch range, ie; yourself. It's not a valid target unless that creature has been dead for less than a minute, but according to Contingency that doesn't matter; the spell isn't being "activated" and therefore checking the validity of the target until the contingency occurs, which will be "when I die".

[Yunru]

Which is why you can target the body, but the spell won't.

But that doesn't matter, the spell effect doesn't happen until the Contingency trigger.

Edit: rereading Contingency, 8 can see where you're arguing from, but I still don't agree with the assumption that the spell won't target it.

[Yunru]

Contingency requires a spell that can target you.

And it can, when you're dead. It doesn't say "that can target you now" after all.

[Yunru]

And it doesn't need to. It's present, not future. Furthermore, it must be a spell that you can cast. So, since tomorrow i will memorize "Dispel Magic", i can put into a Contingency now, right?

We can go on in "Absurd territory" here Yunru. It's a present. It either means "as a general condition, ever true" or "now".

No, you can't. Because you cast the spell as part of casting Contingency to counter exactly that.

[Lupine]

It only restores you with 1HP and requires at least Wizard level 11 and Cleric level 5. Very steep investment for a very slim chance of being helpful.

I think this is a much more reasonable way to think about this. Sure, it can be done, but its such a large investment, would you really want to? I think this is probably a more effective gimmick for the BBEG than for the players.

[ThePolarBear]

No, you can't. Because you cast the spell as part of casting Contingency to counter exactly that.

And for the same reason, Contingency tells you that the spell needs to be able to target you. And it doesn't. It will, but that's not what was asked.

Edit: before confusion strikes: i've edited and deleted many of my posts and condensed them into a single one. Not Yunru's fault if they have several posts one after the other.

[PhantomSoul]

I'm all about RAW, but this one seems like it could go either way with a strict reading. I don't see it as being overpowered in any sense either. It only restores you with 1HP and requires at least Wizard level 11 and Cleric level 5. Very steep investment for a very slim chance of being helpful.

Or be an Arcana Cleric and take Contingency as one of your Arcane Mastery Spells... but that still takes a hefty investment (and requires a higher Level than Multiclassing would require!)

[Hail Tempus]

"Choose a spell of 5th level or lower that you can cast, that has a casting time of 1 action, and that can target you."

Not "that will be able to be cast on you when the conditions apply."

Again, you would never say that a ten years old is allowed to drive a car, would you? You didn't quote all of the relevant text of Contingency (emphasis mine):


Choose a spell of 5th level or lower that you can cast, that has a casting time of 1 action, and that can target you. You cast that spell–called the contingent spell–as part of casting Contingency, expending spell slots for both, but the contingent spell doesn’t come into effect. Instead, it takes effect when a certain circumstance occurs.

Revivify is lower than 5th level, has a casting time of 1 action, and can target the caster. I'm not seeing the issue here. The spell triggers when the circumstance (presumably "When the caster dies") is met, and brings the caster back to life with 1 hp, per the spell.

[Gignere]

Or be an Arcana Cleric and take Contingency as one of your Arcane Mastery Spells... but that still takes a hefty investment (and requires a higher Level than Multiclassing would require!)

Or bard steal revivify and contingency bam not even an investment because these two spells are likely high on most character optimization lists to steal anyway.

But probably easier to just steal and/or cast death ward for a similar effect.

[Rukelnikov]

Round 1: Suicide
Round 2: Cleric Revivifies you
Round 3: Wish for Contingency, make Revivify contingent on yourself

To be able to cast both spells, be a Divine Soul Sorc, or a Bard, or be able to cast one of this spells and get the other from an item.

[Aelyn]

You didn't quote all of the relevant text of Contingency (emphasis mine):



Revivify is lower than 5th level, has a casting time of 1 action, and can target the caster. I'm not seeing the issue here. The spell triggers when the circumstance (presumably "When the caster dies") is met, and brings the caster back to life with 1 hp, per the spell.

The target for Revivify is "a creature that has died within the last minute." When casting Contingency (barring highly exceptional circumstances), the caster is not "a creature that has died within the last minute." Therefore, the caster can't be targeted by Revivify while casting Contingency, and therefore Revivify is not a valid choice of Contingent spell.

[ThePolarBear]

You didn't quote all of the relevant text of Contingency (emphasis mine):

I did.

"Choose a spell of 5th level or lower that you can cast, that has a casting time of 1 action, and that can target you."

At this point, you need to check if Revivify can be cast on you. It is not "That may target you", "that will be able to target you when the conditions arise".

The spell needs to be able to target you when you cast Contingency. The "now".


Revivify is lower than 5th level, has a casting time of 1 action, and can target the caster.

It MAY, mind you. But as i presented in my first post the circumstances for that "may" to be a "can" are extremely specific.
In general, Revivify can not target the caster. It may, in the future. It will, the moment that the conditions apply. But that's not what is asked. You are asked for a spell that can. Not one that may or will.


I'm not seeing the issue here. The spell triggers when the circumstance (presumably "When the caster dies") is met, and brings the caster back to life with 1 hp, per the spell.

The issue is that the question is "As i am casting Contingency", not "when the spell comes in effect".The effect of Contingency that includes the clause that the spell "can target you" is not part of "when the spell will take place", nor has any other time ascribed to it other than the present - when you are casting Contingency.

Again, for the same reason i assume you would never pick "Drive a car" if a question asks you to pick what a 10 years old is allowed to do. Just because they may be able in the future the question is about the "now".

For the same reason as i imagine would not allow to cast a 6th level spell as part of a non-upcasted Contingency just in the off chance that the character might be able to gain the same spell as a 4th level one. "But it says that it has to be a spell of xth level or less, so the slot that you are spending is of 6th level!" "So what? t doesn't say that you can't spend a slot of nth level! And when Contingency will trigger that spell will be of 4th level for me! The trigger is exactly that condition!"

See the problem in the argument?

[Yunru]

Maybe cast Animate Dead first, pick up the neat zombie traits, and then get restored to life? :P

Alas, you can only have one Contingency at a time.

Edit: I'd like to point out that the assertion that Revivify can't target you is not an official thing. See my mangled explanation regarding whether you know how long a target has been dead for.

[Aelyn]

Okay, I think it's clear at this point that the answer is "RAW is debatable, check with your DM if this is something you want to build towards."

If we can at least agree there are arguments on both side and that these arguments are not completely without merit (even if you disagree with them), then that's all that needs to be said.

[Hail Tempus]

I did.

"Choose a spell of 5th level or lower that you can cast, that has a casting time of 1 action, and that can target you."

At this point, you need to check if Revivify can be cast on you. It is not "That may target you", "that will be able to target you when the conditions arise".

The spell needs to be able to target you when you cast Contingency. The "now". It doesn't say anywhere in the spell description that the effect of the contingent spell needs to be effective at the time of casting. In fact, the description of Contingency makes it clear that the contingent spell doesn't take effect until the contingency is triggered.Following your logic, you couldn't have Cure Wounds as your contingent spell if the caster was at full hit points when you cast the spell.


Again, for the same reason you would never pick "Drive a car" if a question asks you to pick what a 10 years old is allowed to do. Just because they may be able in the future the question is "now". Contingency- "When my son gets his driver's license, I'll let him drive my car." Works just fine.


For the same reason as i imagine would not allow to cast a 6th level spell as part of a non-upcasted Contingency just in the off chance that the character might be able to gain the same spell as a 4th level one. "But it says that it has to be a spell of xth level or less, so the slot that you are spending is of 6th level!" "So what? t doesn't say that you can't spend a slot of nth level! And when Contingency will trigger that spell will be of 4th level for me! The trigger is exactly that condition!"

See the problem in the argument? What? I'm not aware of any situation in 5e where a particular spell is 4th level in one situation and 6th in another.

[ThePolarBear]

Edit: I'd like to point out that the assertion that Revivify can't target you is not an official thing.

Sorry, what? It is as official as it gets. Targets section of Spellcasting, phb. The spell tells you what it can target in the description.
Add on "range" - which is touch.
Add the rules for "invalid targets".


See my mangled explanation regarding whether you know how long a target has been dead for.

That, again, makes the caster unable to know. It doesn't make the target any more or any less something that the spell actually targets - which it can target or not in other words - or the spell target anything different from what already does.


It doesn't say anywhere in the spell description that the effect of the contingent spell needs to be effective at the time of casting.

And the damage from Fireball doesn't happen "now" because? Oh, the spell is "instantaneous"? So what? Other spells have instantaneous duration and yet have effects that protracts in time!


In fact, the description of Contingency makes it clear that the contingent spell doesn't take effect until the contingency is triggered.Following your logic, you couldn't have Cure Wounds as your contingent spell if the caster was at full hit points when you cast the spell.

No, because Cure Wounds doesn't require a target that is wounded - only a creature. A creature is a creature whether it is wounded or not. Revivify however has another requirement.


Contingency- "When my son gets his driver's license, I'll let him drive my car." Works just fine.

But Contingency doesn't have a when! That's the whole point! Contingency is "Since my son has a driver's licence and i have a car that i can drive and that he too can, i'll put my car in the garage and when he comes back i'll let him drive it"

Is the spell of 5th level or less? Yes - as i am able to drive the car to put inside the garage
Is the spell one that i can cast? Yes - i have a car, so i'm able to drive it
Does my son have a licence?

In my example yes. He can drive a car since he has a licence.
In your example no. He can't drive a car since he doesn't have a licence. He might be able to, he possibly will be able to. But he can't now as i'm casting Contingency. It doesn't matter that the "driving of the car" - the contingent spell - will not happen until he is allowed to drive. When i'm making the plan - i'm casting Contingency - the condition fails.


What? I'm not aware of any situation in 5e where a particular spell is 4th level in one situation and 6th in another.

It's an hypotetical example.


Uhh, I'm afraid you'll have to quote, because I'm not seeing it:
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Spells#content

There's also no "rules for" invalid targets""?

"Targets
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more Targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description tells you whether the spell Targets creatures, Objects, or a point of Origin for an area of effect (described below)."

The rule for invalid targets is in Xanathar edit - which is not an "open" document, so i'll refrain from quoting. It essentially boils down to "what happens if a character chooses a target that a spell can't target: the spell doesn't have an effect"

[Gignere]

Sometimes I really hate these raw debates if it’s not overpowered I rather just allow it at my table. Like the threads on darkness and now this thread, I don’t want my RPG books to read like f*cking law treatises. Some ambiguity is to be expected. That’s why players and DMs should use their judgement.

[Aelyn]

Following your logic, you couldn't have Cure Wounds as your contingent spell if the caster was at full hit points when you cast the spell.
FYI, this is a false equivalence. Cure Wounds doesn't say "a creature you touch that's on less than full hit points regains a number of hit points...", it just says "a creature you touch regains a number of hit points..."

In other words, not being on full HP is not a targeting restriction for Cure Wounds in the same way as having died within the last minute is a targeting restriction of Revivify.

[Yunru]

Sorry, what? It is as official as it gets. Targets section of Spellcasting, phb. The spell tells you what it can target in the description.
Add on "range" - which is touch.
Add the rules for "invalid targets".


Uhh, I'm afraid you'll have to quote, because I'm not seeing it:
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Spells#content

There's also no "rules for" invalid targets""?

[PhantomSoul]

Uhh, I'm afraid you'll have to quote, because I'm not seeing it:
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Spells#content

There's also no "rules for" invalid targets""?

Xanathar's provides rules more recently, though tables might have had house rules dating from before that:


Invalid Spell Targets
A spell specifies what a caster can target with it: any type of creature, a creature of a certain type
(humanoid or beast, for instance), an object, an area, the caster, or something else. But what
happens if a spell targets something that isn’t a valid target? For example, someone might cast
charm person on a creature believed to be a humanoid, not knowing that the target is in fact a
vampire. If this issue comes up, handle it using the following rule.
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by the spell, nothing happens
to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell
normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to
have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn’t attempt one (giving no hint that the
creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the
target.

[Yunru]

So an invalid target doesn't stop you casting the spell with the target as a target?
Thank you :)

[Hail Tempus]

FYI, this is a false equivalence. Cure Wounds doesn't say "a creature you touch that's on less than full hit points regains a number of hit points...", it just says "a creature you touch regains a number of hit points..."

In other words, not being on full HP is not a targeting restriction for Cure Wounds in the same way as having died within the last minute is a targeting restriction of Revivify.The "dead in the last minute" isn't a targeting restriction of Revivify; it's a limitation on its effectiveness. Players can try to cast spells whenever they want, the DM then looks at the spell description to figure out if the spell is effective.

Player: "I cast Revivify on the dead gnome."
DM: "You cast the spell using a 3rd level spell slot and use up the material component. The spell doesn't work because the target has been dead for too long."

Player: " I cast Bless and target the Fighter, Ranger and Rogue"
DM: "You cast the spell using a 1st level spell slot. The other party members are more than 30 away, so nothing happens."

On the other hand:

Player: "My character failed his third death save. That triggers his Contingency: Revivify."
DM: "Okay, you're no longer dead and have 1 hp."

[ThePolarBear]

So an invalid target doesn't stop you casting the spell with the target as a target?
Thank you :)

It doesn't. But it would prevent Contingency from having an effect.


The "dead in the last minute" isn't a targeting restriction of Revivify; it's a limitation on its effectiveness. Players can try to cast spells whenever they want, the DM then looks at the spell description to figure out if the spell is effective.

... which is exactly what a target is about - a limitation of effectiveness. Nothing prevents a character from targeting an invalid target for a spell.

But for the spell it is not something that it can target regardless of your character choice.

Contingency doesn't ask for a spell that your character can target. It asks for a target that the spell can target.


On the other hand:

Player: "My character failed his third death save. That triggers his Contingency: Revivify."
DM: "Okay, you're no longer dead and have 1 hp."

No, it's "You cast Contingency and spend 2 spell slots. The spell doesn't have an effect." edit - well, arguably you could say one only spends one slots. However... not really the place for this discussion.

Again, the condition is for Contingency to work, not for the other spell you are casting!

[Talsin]

Player: " I cast Bless and target the Fighter, Ranger and Rogue"
DM: "You cast the spell using a 1st level spell slot. The other party members are more than 30 away, so nothing happens."

That doesn't fly with DMG from my reading.

"Range:
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature.
For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space
where the ball of fire erupts."

To me, this sounds like you just can't cast the spell in that case rather than wasting the slot - though this also sounds like it's open to some interpretation.

[Yunru]

It doesn't. But it would prevent Contingency from having an effect.



... which is exactly what a target is about - a limitation of effectiveness. Nothing prevents a character from targeting an invalid target for a spell.

But for the spell it is not something that it can target regardless of your character choice.
Uh... No.
If you can't target it with a spell you can't target it.
If you can't target it, there's no way for it to be an invalid target.
Thus you must be able to target invalid targets (which is even reaffirmed by the rule and an example given).
There is no separation of player target vs. spell target, that is just a figment of your imagination.

If I can cast charm person on an invalid target, I can cast Revivify on an invalid target. Thus a living person can be a target for Revivify, thus applicable for Contingency. (It does NOT, after all state the target must be valid.)

[Hail Tempus]

... which is exactly what a target is about - a limitation of effectiveness. Nothing prevents a character from targeting an invalid target for a spell.

But for the spell it is not something that it can target regardless of your character choice.

Contingency doesn't ask for a spell that your character can target. It asks for a target that the spell can target.
Right, and when Contingency processes, you look to see the effect that the spell has on the target. Has the target been dead for less than one minute? If so, revivify triggers.

There is a possibility that a contingency doesn't work because of some outside circumstance (say, the caster dies and is turned into an undead creature, in which event revivify wouldn't work). But the idea that the effectiveness of the contingent spell needs to be useful when the contingency is established is just plain silly.

The point of Contingency is to let you cast a useful spell sometime in the future. DMs who nerf this type of thing are just being a-holes.

[AHF]

Polar Bear - For your reading, am I correct in understanding that you read the rule as needing a valid target both when the contingency is created and when it goes into effect?

Example 1 - Failure in Setting Up Contingency:

Pre-combat: Wizard is blinded and attempts to cast contingency, healing word. "When I suffer more than 2HP damage, healing word will trigger and heal me."

Result: Because the Wizard can't see, he is not a valid target and it fails.


Example 2 - Failure in Executing Validly Established Contingency

Pre-combat: Wizard can see and casts contingency: "When I suffer more than 2HP damage, healing word will trigger." The contingency spell is successful in being established because the Wizard is a valid target at this point in time.

Round 1 - Wizard is blinded but loses no hp.

Round 2 - Wizard is hit for 4 hp damage. Contingency fires since the "suffer more than 2 hp damage" is met but now the Wizard is no longer a valid target because he can't see himself.

Result: Because the Wizard can't see, he is not a valid target and the execution of the preset contingency fails.

--------------------

Is that correct?

[Imbalance]

No, for the same reason that would bring you to not choose "Drive a car" when asked to "Choose which of these activities a 10 years old is allowed to do".

Again, you would never say that a ten years old is allowed to drive a car, would you?

1) By the age of twelve I was learning to drive a car, had learned to drive a tractor previously, bit of a late start.
2) How is this in any way relevant to this spell? I'm genuinely curious about this analogy.

[JNAProductions]

I think that, RAW, you technically can't. Revivify has to target a recently deceased creature.

That being said, the game ain't gonna break if you allow it. I'd certainly let it be.

[Teaguethebean]

If it is true you cannot use Revivify contingency than you also cannot use Dispel magic Contingency so ask your dm as I have never been at a table that doesn't allow Dispel magic Contingency.

[JNAProductions]

If it is true you cannot use Revivify contingency than you also cannot use Dispel magic Contingency so ask your dm as I have never been at a table that doesn't allow Dispel magic Contingency.

Why would you want to cast that?

[AHF]

If it is true you cannot use Revivify contingency than you also cannot use Dispel magic Contingency so ask your dm as I have never been at a table that doesn't allow Dispel magic Contingency.

I don't understand the logic here. Dispel Magic requires the caster to: "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range."

When the Wizard casts contingency, the Wizard is a creature within 120' so that seems to work under any reading.

[Teaguethebean]

Why would you want to cast that?

It stops effects like hold person or othe debuffs.

[JNAProductions]

It stops effects like hold person or othe debuffs.

What's the trigger?

[Teaguethebean]

I don't understand the logic here. Dispel Magic requires the caster to: "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range."

When the Wizard casts contingency, the Wizard is a creature within 120' so that seems to work under any reading.

I was mainly speaking on the whole wizard is not able to cast Revivify because he is dead as a point of he is held by hold person as an example so he cannot cast the spell.

[Aelyn]

If it is true you cannot use Revivify contingency than you also cannot use Dispel magic Contingency so ask your dm as I have never been at a table that doesn't allow Dispel magic Contingency.

Why not? Dispel Magic's targeting rules are "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range." You can choose yourself as the target there, no problem.

[ThePolarBear]

Uh... No.
If you can't target it with a spell you can't target it.

What? No, if i can't target it with a spell i might be able to target it with a spell, assuming the two spells are different. I can't target an invisible creature with Magic Missile but i can with Dispel Magic just fine. And i can target something with a spell that doesn't target that something just fine. The spell can't target that and it means it will have no effect.


If you can't target it, there's no way for it to be an invalid target.

Which, since it is possible... that you can target it, but the spell doesn't.

Unless you and the spell are the same thing, there's a dissonance.

quoting it again:

"Targets
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more Targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description tells you whether the spell Targets creatures, Objects, or a point of Origin for an area of effect (described below)."


There is no separation of player target vs. spell target, that is just a figment of your imagination.

There is, however? Hope you agree that a spell that can target only a single creature is not a spell that the character casts and chooses to target a single creature: we know that this is officially the case. And again a character might choose to target 600 creatures with a spell that only targets one, and the spell will only have effect on one since the spell only targets one creature.

The two "targets" might coincide - expecially since one defines the other at the moment of casting - but if you couldn't target something that a spell can't target, you wouldn't need a rule for invalid targets. The fact that a character can cast a spell to a chosen target that isn't a valid target for the spell means that the two things are separate.


If I can cast charm person on an invalid target, I can cast Revivify on an invalid target.

Yes! "You". You choose the targets of the spell, but not what a spell can target. You choose who you want to affect, but not what the spell can affect.


Thus a living person can be a target for Revivify, thus applicable for Contingency. (It does NOT, after all state the target must be valid.)

No! You can cast Revivify on a living person! You can choose a target for Revivify, and that can be a living person or a rock. However, Revivify can't target a living person because Revivify doesn't target living persons - it is not in the list of what a spell "targets".

The requirement for Contingency is not "that you can target". Is "a spell [...] that can target you". Revivify can't and doesn't unless you meet the criteria in its description.


Right, and when Contingency processes,

You are offering an invalid target - something to affect, like having the effect delayed -, thus the spell doesn't have an effect. It never reaches anything else as far as "process" goes.


But the idea that the effectiveness of the contingent spell needs to be useful when the contingency is established is just plain silly.

No it isn't. There are plenty of spells that can be cast on "you" even when there's no need for them. The requirement is not that a spell is useful - that's up to the caster to determine. The requirement is that the spell can target you. Some spells can do that only when you aren't able to cast them. And that's normal, not silly.


The point of Contingency is to let you cast a useful spell sometime in the future. DMs who nerf this type of thing are just being a-holes.

The point of Contingency is to let you cast a spell some time in the future - useful or not. It's up to the player to choose when and what but the when and the what have to be within the limits of the spell itself. Even if the spell that is already there might be useful now it might not fire simply because the conditions are not present. And saying "no it doesn't" is not beign a bad DM or anything. There's nothing to "nerf" here - a DM is not involved in any of this discussion. A Dm can choose to do whatever - it can have Contingency cast 9th level spells for free. It is not "Bad" DMing to say that Fireball deals 8d6 "because it says so" just as Contingency doesn't allow Revivify for the same reason.


1) By the age of twelve I was learning to drive a car, had learned to drive a tractor previously, bit of a late start.
2) How is this in any way relevant to this spell? I'm genuinely curious about this analogy.

Quite simply there are many possible criticisms to be moved to Contingency. One from Hail Tempus and many others - you only need to have the condition be verified when you actually have the effect of the stored spell.

The example deals with this. If it was reasonable to read that the necessity to be able to cast the spell on you has to be checked only when the spell takes effect on you, then it would be also reasonable to expect it for the phrase to not be in the present. It follows the example (as general, i've also had my experiences with tractors in my time :D) which deal with the exact same concept: on a question that is in the present, would you answer with a future? No one objects that the kid might be able to drive, be allowed to drive or whatever in the future. The question is in the present and meant and generally understood as pertaining the "now". I believe that the first instinct on reading for you also prompted you to think "back then", applying the "now" to your own experience. You "were" allowed to by adults. Prehaps not by "the law", however the timing of the question i believe was clear to you, too. I didn't use "can" because of "silly" in meanings: you "can" drive a vehicle since you know how, but you "cannot" drive a vehicle since you are not allowed to by law. That's why "allowed".

So, does it make sense to expect the condition on Contingency to require a "right at this point in time as you begin casting the spell" since it uses the present over having another form - like "when the condition of the trigger comes to pass" - attached to it? Does it make sense for the example?

Furthermore... we don't know the future. Yes, it is "normal" to expect something and if you word the trigger strictly enough there's little leeway. But again it's an unreasonable assumption given that we don't know what will happen, exactly as we don't know what will happen to that kid - if they will ever make it to get the licence, for example. As others have mentioned a character under Rev-Cont might end up undead directly. Yet... to become an undead you generally "die". The spell might never have the opportunity to have a target that the spell "can" target up until its end... At that point was the stored spell ever a spell that "can" target "you"?

[Grey Watcher]

Can I just point out that this has made me notice that Revivify doesn't work as intended if you're going by the strictest interpretation of the text?

The rules are, unless I a much mistaken, pretty dang consistent in using the definition that a creature is an active, animate entity (living, undead, animated construct, etc.) while a corpse is an object. So if Revivify only works on a creature, strictly speaking it shouldn't actually do anything to a dead body.

Reminds me of a thread a few years back where someone noted that the Warlock Invocation One with Shadows didn't actually do anything. :smalltongue:

[Talsin]

If it is true you cannot use Revivify contingency than you also cannot use Dispel magic Contingency so ask your dm as I have never been at a table that doesn't allow Dispel magic Contingency.

I don't see how dispel magic would be prevented by contingency - the target is a creature. It doesn't require anything other than it being a creature. Revivify requires the creature to have died within a minute to be a valid target. This got answered

[Yunru]

At this point is clear you won't budge.
If you want to invent this fiction of a player and a spell having different targets, go right ahead, it's your fiction after all.

But the very rules you quote tells you that you pick the targets for the spell:
"A typical spell requires you to pick one or more Targets to be affected by the spell’s magic."

[AHF]

Polar Bear - Do you mind responding to my post asking whether you think the target needs to be valid both at the time the contingency is established and when it triggers? Just curious to get your take on this element on the spell given that you have spelled out your view on the initial casting so clearly. Thanks!

[Segev]

Given that we're having an extensive debate over very fiddly targeting rules, I think we're firmly in the "DM ruling" territory of 5e.

So, is it broken? Probably not.

[JackPhoenix]

What's the trigger?

Irrelevant to the discussion, that's what it is.

Could be one of the caster's companions using certain passpharse, the user being paralyzed/charmed/polymorphed by magic, it doesn't matter.

[ThePolarBear]

But the very rules you quote tells you that you pick the targets for the spell:
"A typical spell requires you to pick one or more Targets to be affected by the spell’s magic."

Yeah. You pick the target, the spell tells you what it can target. The very same following line from what you are quoting: "A spell’s description tells you whether the spell Targets creatures, Objects, or a point of Origin for an area of effect (described below).". You choose, the spell tells you if it will have an effect. You make a choice, the spell tells you if it is a valid one.

For Contingency: you "Choose a spell [...] that can target you". If the choice isn't a valid one then there's no effect.



Polar Bear - Do you mind responding to my post asking whether you think the target needs to be valid both at the time the contingency is established and when it triggers? Just curious to get your take on this element on the spell given that you have spelled out your view on the initial casting so clearly. Thanks!

Sorry, i did miss your post.

Three times: once because it is a requirement for Contingency to have an effect at all. The second because you need to cast the spell. The third time you need to check if a spell can have any effect at all. Two and Three are usually one and the same and one doesn't really exists outside of Contingency - it is a requirement of that spell after all. Contingency does change all of that. And usually One and Two are checked at the same time - the spell to store has to be a spell that you can cast anyway.

It might not be that Three is intended: the Contingency does state that the spell "takes effect". However, the target section does tell us that targets are what is going to be affected by the spell - that which the spell has an effect on - and the spell tells us what it can affect. And Cont. also tells us that the spell will target you and only you even if the contingent spell could or would otherwise affect other creatures. Which could mean that it is meant to completely change all the "parameters" of the spell taking effect to "now it targets you and only you, regardless of form" as a change on the targeting requirements, instead as simply being a forced choice. However, there are other spells that work as changing the parameters of the spell - lifting concentration, extending duration... - that are way more explicit on what they actually do.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Slightly off topic, but aside from multiclassing and being a Bard how does one have both Contingency and Revivify?

So reading over Revivify I can fine no evidence that the spell can't target a living creature it simply does nothing if the creature isn't dead.

... which is exactly what a target is about - a limitation of effectiveness. Nothing prevents a character from targeting an invalid target for a spell.


For Contingency: you "Choose a spell [...] that can target you". If the choice isn't a valid one then there's no effect.
Okay so you admit that the spell CAN target you, and thus it is VALID for Contingency.

Contingency doesn't ask for a spell that can effect you it asks for spell that can target you. You admitted at least TWICE that Revivify can target creatures it can't effect. So by your own words it works.

[CNagy]

Contingency and Revivify works as per the rules in Xanathar's.

The Contingency spell requires a spell that can target you. Revivify can target you, but you are invalid for the effect of the spell because you aren't recently dead. Contingency, however, does not require that the spell which can target you will successfully affect you--it requires that the spell can target you; thus eliminating spells that do not target a creature (like AoE and others). So the Contingency works, and the Revivify that has targeted you would normally fail because you aren't recently dead but the spell's resolution doesn't occur until Contingency lets it, which happens to be after you've died. Thus Revivify takes affect, determines you to be a dead creature, and works normally.

[Composer99]

When this thread first came up, I would have said that no, you can't make revivify a contingent spell.

However, after reading the description of contingency a bit more closely, along with the rules for spell targets in the PHB and Xanathar's, I've come round to the conclusion that you can make revivify a contingent spell.

Here's my reasoning:
(1) Neither the rules for choosing targets in the PHB, nor the rules about invalid targets in Xanathar's, prohibit willfully choosing an invalid target. All the rules in Xanathar's do is clarify what happens when you choose an invalid target: those rules work whether you do so willfully or not. That means that even if you are an invalid target, revivify "can target you", satisfying that condition for contingency.

(2) Your intended contingent spell that you cast at the end of casting contingency doesn't come into effect at the time you cast it. Instead, it only comes into effect if the triggering circumstance occurs while contingency is in effect.
(3) If revivify is your contingent spell, if during the duration of contingency you die - presumably the triggering circumstance for the contingent spell - it takes effect, at which point you are a valid target, being dead for less than 1 minute.

Point (1) - the fact that there is a rule for casting spells on invalid targets that does not prohibit willfully doing so - is the primary support for concluding that revivify can be a contingent spell. The other points, although helpful, aren't necessary for the conclusion.

[Tanarii]

Here's my reasoning:
(1) Neither the rules for choosing targets in the PHB, nor the rules about invalid targets in Xanathar's, prohibit willfully choosing an invalid target. All the rules in Xanathar's do is clarify what happens when you choose an invalid target: those rules work whether you do so willfully or not. That means that even if you are an invalid target, revivify "can target you", satisfying that condition for contingency.
(1a - corollary) you can cast contingency with any spell

Since, y'know, that logic applies to all spells.

[Yunru]

(1a - corollary) you can cast contingency with any spell

Since, y'know, that logic applies to all spells.

Not exactly.
You can't choose something that targets a point in space, since there's no way to not target a point in space. For example.

[ThePolarBear]

Not exactly.
You can't choose something that targets a point in space, since there's no way to not target a point in space. For example.

What? But you can totally do so, since you are not limited to targeting what the spell says it can target. So, you "can" target it! And so the spell does target it!
This means that the spell "can" target it!

[Tanarii]

What this really comes down to is 5e needs an explict Target line in the spell block. Not this mixed in with effect text business.

[Composer99]

(1a - corollary) you can cast contingency with any spell

Since, y'know, that logic applies to all spells.

I'm just going to assume this was a good-faith request for a clarification, rather than the unproductive indulgence in pedantry that it comes across as, and respond by clarifying/correcting that willfully being able to select an invalid target for a spell must still satisfy the condition that a spell "can target you" imposed by contingency. That leaves out spells that don't target creatures, for instance.

Of course, we could just lean into it and say, sure, why not? Since there's no rule saying "you can't willfully choose an invalid target for a spell", but there is a rule handling what happens when you choose an invalid target, nothing in the rules is stopping you from casting charm person on a rock, at the cost of the spell not taking effect and you expending a spell slot. So go ahead and make any spell a contingent spell.

[CNagy]

(1a - corollary) you can cast contingency with any spell

Since, y'know, that logic applies to all spells.

No, it doesn't. You cannot change the range of a spell. Revivify targets a creature and, as per the rules in Xanathar, Revivify then determines whether the creature is a valid target. You cannot, however, choose to cast Revivify in a 30' radius, for example. You don't even get to the point where the spell determines the validity of the target, you're trying to cast a spell that does not exist.

Contingency requires a spell that can target you. You are a creature, so spells that do not target creatures are impossible to use with Contingency because you cannot change the range of the spell.

[Tanarii]

You both seem to be assuming there's some kind of intermediate targeting allowance or requirement in between valid and invalid, where a creature is a valid invalid target, and other invalid target spells are invalid invalid targets.

[Chugger]

We're going in circles. I think any reasonable person would have to conclude it's not perfectly clear and that you have to check with your DM. This might be tough if you play AL at a store where one of 10 people might DM.

The wording of Revivify doesn't specifically say you can't cast it on yourself or that you can't cast it on a non-dead creature - the way it's worded might be done more to spell out the time limit - or a person could interpret that to mean the creature must be dead - but it doesn't specifically speak about targeting. So really it's totally open to interpretation - it is absolutely not clear. A DM could reasonably rule either way.

There's no way we're going to answer this. Don't assume: ask your DM. It's the only reasonable course of action.

[Aquillion]

It's ambiguous, but I'd allow it. It's definitely balanced. Some important things to note:

1. You have to pay the 300 gp cost upfront, and it's lost whether you end up needing the auto-revive or not.

2. You come back with 1 hp.

3. You can just Contingency Cure Wounds. In the vast majority of cases it's going to be a much better choice - you can upcast it to 5d8, and most things that kill you will incapacitate you first, letting the Cure Wounds trigger and get you back on your feet. Revivify helps you avoid dying to massive damage or instant-death effects, but neither are particularly common, so for day-to-day use a Contingent 5d8 + 5 Cure Wounds is much better.

Also, absent Ring of Spell Storing shenanigans (which you can't build around in 5e), the most likely class to get into unintended Contingency shenanigans is a Bard. And they have Cure Wounds on their class list already, so you only need one Magical Secret pick to contingency it, whereas Contingent Revivify requires two.

[OzDragon]

Here's the thing, some are arguing that the spell is cast when you cast contingency. The spell is not "cast" at that time it is in fact preloaded.

It is a simple if/then. If I die then cast revivify. Not I cast revivify then if I die I come back.

For more clarification here is the specific text that verifies this.

The contingent spell takes effect immediately after the circumstance is met for the first time, whether or not you want it to, and then contingency ends.

The bold part is all you need to see. So this you are not dead so you can't cast it on yourself nonsense is just that.

[PhantomSoul]

Here's the thing, some are arguing that the spell is cast when you cast contingency. The spell is not "cast" at that time it is in fact preloaded.

It is a simple if/then. If I die then cast revivify. Not I cast revivify then if I die I come back.

For more clarification here is the specific text that verifies this.

The contingent spell takes effect immediately after the circumstance is met for the first time, whether or not you want it to, and then contingency ends.

The bold part is all you need to see. So this you are not dead so you can't cast it on yourself nonsense is just that.

Actually,


Choose a spell of 5th level or lower that you can cast, that has a casting time of 1 action, and that can target you. You cast that spell—called the contingent spell—as part of casting contingency, expending spell slots for both, but the contingent spell doesn’t come into effect. Instead, it takes effect when a certain circumstance occurs. You describe that circumstance when you cast the two spells. For example, a contingency cast with water breathing might stipulate that water breathing comes into effect when you are engulfed in water or a similar liquid.
The contingent spell takes effect immediately after the circumstance is met for the first time, whether or not you want it to, and then contingency ends.
The contingent spell takes effect only on you, even if it can normally target others. You can use only one contingency spell at a time. If you cast this spell again, the effect of another contingency spell on you ends. Also, contingency ends on you if its material component is ever not on your person.

Emphasis mine.

Taking effect and casting are specifically distinguished.

[Mutazoia]

You sure can.

Think of the contingency spell as a 3rd party entity, with the sole purpose of casting a single spell when the trigger conditions are met. You load whatever spell you want into that entity, in this case, revivify, much like loading a spell into a ring of spell storing. Now, when the trigger event occurs (i.e your death) the contingency spell casts revivify, not you.


So, basically, Contingency is like a one-shot ring of spell storing that will cast one spell automatically when a certain condition is met.

[OzDragon]

Actually,



Emphasis mine.

Taking effect and casting are specifically distinguished.

You can make any emphasis you want, yes you cast the spell which means you use the spell slot. The spell however is not "cast" until the condition is met. Once the condition is met in this case you die at that point the spell is actually cast.

[Tanarii]

You can make any emphasis you want, yes you cast the spell which means you use the spell slot. The spell however is not "cast" until the condition is met. Once the condition is met in this case you die at that point the spell is actually cast.
If this were the ready action, I'd agree. When targeting happens matters.

But in this case Contingency specifies it matters when you cast the contingency.


We're going in circles. I think any reasonable person would have to conclude it's not perfectly clear and that you have to check with your DM. This might be tough if you play AL at a store where one of 10 people might DM.
Agreed. But personally as a DM I've been convinced by this thread that it's not possible, because only the "no it can't" argument holds together so far, and the "yes it can" arguments have all been unsound so far. (Not that it matters IMC, it doesn't run to this level. But if it ever comes up in the future, I've got a solid idea of my ruling now, and why.)

[OzDragon]

If this were the ready action, I'd agree. When targeting happens matters.

But in this case Contingency specifies it matters when you cast the contingency.


Agreed. But personally as a DM I've been convinced by this thread that it's not possible, because only the "no it can't" argument holds together so far, and the "yes it can" arguments have all been unsound so far. (Not that it matters IMC, it doesn't run to this level. But if it ever comes up in the future, I've got a solid idea of my ruling now, and why.)

But the targeting does not take effect until the spell is "actually" cast which is when the condition is met.

These situations are exactly why there is a contingency spell in the first place.

[PhantomSoul]

But the targeting does not take effect until the spell is "actually" cast which is when the condition is met.

I think it might help to use the word "cast" only when it's for the mechanics sense of "cast"; "takes effect" or "activates" or "is released" or something else might help?

(The unclear goal of my last post -- that if you say it's cast when the Contingency trigger is met, then it's not consistent with the actual text. But saying "cast" actually seems to just be an unfortunate word choice given the spell explicitly separates spell casting and spell effect.)

[Tanarii]

(The unclear goal of my last post -- that if you say it's cast when the Contingency trigger is met, then it's not consistent with the actual text. But saying "cast" actually seems to just be an unfortunate word choice given the spell explicitly separates spell casting and spell effect.)
The Ready action runs into similar issues with the Cast a Spell action.

[Aquillion]

If this were the ready action, I'd agree. When targeting happens matters.

But in this case Contingency specifies it matters when you cast the contingency.This isn't MTG. Your argument has no basis in the rules that I can see.

When do you choose a target for a spell - as part of the casting, or while resolving the effect? Are you allowed to start casting a spell without an invalid target?

The "targeting" rules only say this:


A typical spell requires you to pick one or more Targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description tells you whether the spell Targets creatures, Objects, or a point of Origin for an area of effect (described below).

It does not say when you pick those targets. It feels to me like you've simply assumed MTG-style rules, but there's absolutely nothing in the 5e rules that suggests it works that way - and in the absence of that, I feel the obvious reading is that you go through the spell, as it's resolved, as written in plain English, making decisions when you reach the appropriate point in the text. That is to say, choosing targets is part of the effect, which Contingency delays (though it forces your hand when the time comes.)

Therefore, when you Contingency a Revivify, you just announce that you're casting it. You don't pick targets yet (though Contingency will later force you to target yourself), since choosing targets is part of the effect of the spell - something you do while interpreting its text - and not something you would have to do in advance. And the effect has been delayed.

Note the wording on Contingency (near the bottom, in the part for parsing the spell's effects):


The contingent spell takes effect only on you, even if it can normally target others.

Takes effect on you - that is to say, it defines targeting as something that happens as part of the effect. It does not say "must be cast targeting yourself" higher up, when you first cast the spell (which is what you'd expect if spells work the way you're assuming, ie. targets selected on casting.) It's clearly worded in a way that implies that, without this line, you would be free to choose whatever targets you want at the time when the spell goes off (even though obviously most of those wouldn't be available back when you cast it with the contingency.)

This wording implies that it works like this - you cast the spell, making absolutely no decisions just yet (including target). Later, the Contingency goes off. At that point you go through the spell's text as if casting it, except that whenever you would pick a "target", you're forced to choose yourself and nobody else.

Revivify obviously works under that interpretation. If you disagree, I want to see a reference to the part of the rules that explicitly says that targets must be chosen when casting the spell as opposed to while resolving its effects.

Without that, your argument seems extremely unsound to me - you're basically just saying "no it can't" by inventing new rules on the spot. (Or, much more to the point, it feels like you're just getting your wires crossed and assuming MTG rules, or some game with comparable rules. But that isn't how D&D works.)

[Arkhios]

Three pages from OP, there really seem to be two parties in this debate:
One believes the game should be fun, and as such, are inclined to interpret the combination as doable and relatively balanced.

The other believes the rules should be read with a magnifying glass so that no one misses any miniscule nuances that may or may not actually be there, having fun being inconsequential.

[Rukelnikov]

Three pages from OP, there really seem to be two parties in this debate:
One believes the game should be fun, and as such, are inclined to interpret the combination as doable and relatively balanced.

The other believes the rules should be read with a magnifying glass so that no one misses any miniscule nuances that may or may not actually be there, having fun being inconsequential.

Even reading with magnifying glass it can still be done... i'll repeat:

Round 1: Suicide
Round 2: Friendly priest Revivifies you
Round 3: Wish to duplicate contingency + Revivify

[Esclados]

Seems perfectly legitimate and the flavor makes sense; I don't see why you'd have it not work as a DM. It takes serious sacrifices to get going in the form of suboptimal multiclass or the use of valuable magical secrets slots, and is going to eat a diamond every 10 days to be only better in edge cases than a death ward.

There are even cases where it fails, too. If you die in an antimagic field or similar effect, stay dead in it for a minute, then get dragged out, Contingency will go 'oh no, he's dead!' and Revivify you and fail.

[Aelyn]

Three pages from OP, there really seem to be two parties in this debate:
One believes the game should be fun, and as such, are inclined to interpret the combination as doable and relatively balanced.

The other believes the rules should be read with a magnifying glass so that no one misses any miniscule nuances that may or may not actually be there, having fun being inconsequential.
I tend to find games more fun when people don't spend their time trying to bend the rules to their absolute breaking point in the name of getting spells to do things that they're not meant to do. Maybe you enjoy playing "find the loophole", but I'd rather stick to D&D.

(In other words, no need to be so antagonistic)

Personally, while I can kinda see where the "it works" side are coming from if I tilt my head, I still think that the spell wording is pretty clear and that it takes a few steps of somewhat dubious reasoning to come to the conclusion that it's intended that way.

But neither position is inherently "bad" or "unfun", and trying to frame it that way is not conducive to a reasonable debate or actually coming up with an answer - it's just a pointless ad-hom attack.

[OzDragon]

Even reading with magnifying glass it can still be done... i'll repeat:

Round 1: Suicide
Round 2: Friendly priest Revivifies you
Round 3: Wish to duplicate contingency + Revivify


Sorry but this is wrong, the spell for contingency is not actually cast until the condition is met. It says so in the contingency spell. Too many people are trying to read more than is there.

Again its an if/then situation. If I die then cast revivify on me. The spell slot is used but the spell it self is not actually cast until the condition in this case you die is met.

These types of situations are exactly why the contingency spell exists.

Think of contingency as a ring of spell storing that requires a trigger.

[ThePolarBear]

I'm just going to assume this was a good-faith request for a clarification, rather than the unproductive indulgence in pedantry that it comes across as, and respond by clarifying/correcting that willfully being able to select an invalid target for a spell must still satisfy the condition that a spell "can target you" imposed by contingency. That leaves out spells that don't target creatures, for instance.

No, it doesn't. An invalid target is invalid no matter if it is invalid because the creature is alive or because it is not a creature. In either case the target is invalid but for different reasons. Just because you realize that an object is not a creature doesn't make it impossible for a creature to be an object and for contingency to be set in a way that it would work when that condition comes to pass. In short: ruling this way is self-conflicting with the reasons used to explain why you rule you can target a spell to invalid targets!


Of course, we could just lean into it and say, sure, why not? Since there's no rule saying "you can't willfully choose an invalid target for a spell", but there is a rule handling what happens when you choose an invalid target, nothing in the rules is stopping you from casting charm person on a rock, at the cost of the spell not taking effect and you expending a spell slot. So go ahead and make any spell a contingent spell.

Yes there is! The fact that unless a spell has a valid target, the spell has no effect. One of the targets of Contingency is the spell you are putting into a suspended state! Unless the target is a valid one Contingency doesn't take effect! The "Targets" section of Spellcasting in the PHB tells us that "A spell's description
tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).". We know what a spell does target without a shadow of doubt. So, we also know what a spell can target. Supposedly, the character also knows the limitations of the spell. But we also know that the character doesn't "know" beyond what is reasonable if a target they are going to choose is one that a spell does or doesn't target.


No, it doesn't. You cannot change the range of a spell.

By analogy, an alive caster can't change the target of Revivify. If you can willfully choose an invalid target it doesn't matter if it is invalid because of creature type or range.


Revivify targets a creature

No! Revivify targets a creature that has died in the last minute. It targets any other "creature" just as much as it targets an egg or a piece of paper!


and, as per the rules in Xanathar, Revivify then determines whether the creature is a valid target.

Revivify lists its targets and the DM does the determination, i agree.


You cannot, however, choose to cast Revivify in a 30' radius, for example. You don't even get to the point where the spell determines the validity of the target, you're trying to cast a spell that does not exist.

Yes you do. You just choose a target that is invalid because of range.


Contingency requires a spell that can target you. You are a creature, so spells that do not target creatures are impossible to use with Contingency because you cannot change the range of the spell.

And what about spells that targets a creature that died in the last minute, when such a creature didn't?


This isn't MTG. Your argument has no basis in the rules that I can see.

When do you choose a target for a spell - as part of the casting, or while resolving the effect? Are you allowed to start casting a spell without an invalid target?

Yes, i bet you can start casting a spell without an INVALID target :D

We do have confirmation of the possibility of readying a spell with a target outside of range in the Sage Advice Compendium. Readying a spell requires casting the spell. Readying an action simply requires a condition like "The next person to enter this room". You are not required to choose targets when reading a spell or casting it that way: in fact you aren't even required to release the spell when the condition comes, and the condition is valid until triggered again. And again.


The "targeting" rules only say this:

It does not say when you pick those targets.

It - is - completely - irrelevant.

We know that for Contingency the spell has to be a spell that can target you. It doesn't matter yet if when the spell will have an effect it will be able to target you.

For Contingency to have an effect, the target of Contingency - which includes the spell that is going to stasis since it IS something that you choose to have Contingency affect and it is listed as what Contingency targets - needs to be a spell that can target you. A spell that targets an object doesn't target a creature, even if the creature is going to become an object. It WILL be able to target that specific creature, but as the present it doesn't. Contingency has effect when it is cast. So you need to know at that point if Contingency - and not the spell that is being put into stasis - is going to have an effect. Because if it doesn't "you" are not under Contingency. "You" do not blip to Detect Magic or any other divination effect that will report "you" have a magical effect going on. *Sort of, It depends on how one rules on what the target that suffers no effect is.*

----

The argument being as for why Revivify should work in Contingency are are multiples:

That a caster targeting something means that the spell does target something.
That when the spell will go off the caster will be a valid target, and that's what Contingency is about.
That "can" means that there just needs to be a possibility for it to be the case, not that it has to be the case.

Of the three:

The first discredits the PHB that states that the spells list what they target. It is based on a interpretation of the rule on Xanathar that opens with: "A spell specifies what a caster can target with it:"; a line that gets completely disregarded.
Yes, it can happen that a caster does target something that a spell cannot. That is EXACTLY what this rule is about: what happens when a spell ends up targeting something that it can't since the player character has incomplete knowledge or is willfully being ... inventive. The very same rule is there to solve this "paradox" out: something that shouldn't happen has happened, and this is how to deal with it.
It further ignores that it is a rule on a "system" - spellcasting - that has zero connections with reality. We can't rule "by first/second/third... hand experience" on this. We had no guidance whatsoever on how to deal with the exact same situation before Xanathar.P "I cast Charm person on this dude!" DM:"... you can't i suppose?" P "Why?" DM: "well, this spell doesn't target this dude, and something prevents you from even choosing to even try...? Choose someone else?"

Contingecy calls for the spell to be the thing that "can" target. That is, if there is a choice on what is in the options of the spell, whatever the caster is has to be in that list - regardless of what a possible caster of that spell might do with the possible targeting of the very same spell once it is cast.

The second completely disregards the rule in Xanathar and how it applies to Contingency itself.
The argument as of why Contingency can't host Revivify (most of the times) is: because of Contingency will fail to have an effect before it ever reaches the possibility of confirming if the target will ever be a valid one.
As far as the rules are concerned, the spell to be put on stasis is a target for Contingency. There is a choice involved and there is a definition of options.
At best if an invalid target is chosen there's no Contingency. At worst Contingency is still there but "nothing happens to the target": the spell doesn't get suspended and has effect immediately - and we know it won't have one on the caster.

The third is the one that "can" have more ground however requires that the very meaning of "can" has to change in the span of exactly 11 words.
Contingency requires a spell that "you can cast" among other things. Why should that be different in meaning?
Because Contingency tells us that "You cast that spell"? Well, yes! However, what is there to tell us that "You - need to actually right now with the normal rules - cast that spell" is the reading, and not "You do cast the spell anyway even if you really can't right now, as long as you can pay the spell slot" isn't also the reading? Isn't it also applying the same reasoning of "different possibilities"? Doesn't this all make the spell absolutely bonkers?
And this is already considering that we ALREADY discount the fact that while is normally impossible to cast spells that have a casting time of 1 action while casting another spell that has a casting time longer than 1 action without a specific exception simply because a character doesn't normally have more than one action and Contingency doesn't have such an exception listed!
Why not use a more contextually clear "might" or a more extensive description of targeting requirements if those were meant to be bound by the simple probability and not the actuality?
Why answering the question "Can this spell?" with "it could" should be sufficient, if when the conditions do not come to pass the spell was never one that actually would? When the other uses of can for how it is used and i can remember are pretty much always clear cuts?

I agree that letting Revivify in Contingency could end up in a better game. However is would not say that something "you can", ironically enough, but that i would allow anyway.

[Aelyn]

Sorry but this is wrong, the spell for contingency is not actually cast until the condition is met. It says so in the contingency spell. Too many people are trying to read more than is there.

Again its an if/then situation. If I die then cast revivify on me. The spell slot is used but the spell it self is not actually cast until the condition in this case you die is met.

These types of situations are exactly why the contingency spell exists.

Contingency literally says you cast the Contingent spell as part of casting Contingency...


Choose a spell of 5th level or lower that you can cast, that has a casting time of 1 action, and that can target you. You cast that spell—called the contingent spell—as part of casting contingency, expending spell slots for both, but the contingent spell doesn’t come into effect.

It's only the effect of the Contingent spell which is delayed, not the casting of it.

[OzDragon]

Contingency literally says you cast the Contingent spell as part of casting Contingency...



It's only the effect of the Contingent spell which is delayed, not the casting of it.

Which in this case the target at the time is also delayed. Hence the spell slot is used but the spell is not actually "cast" at the time. It is basically stored in the contingency for later use when a specific trigger happens.

[OzDragon]

Sorry edited due ot idiocy of poster (me) i was thinking of something else at the time of posting.

[Aelyn]

Which in this case the target at the time is also delayed. Hence the spell slot is used but the spell is not actually "cast" at the time. It is basically stored in the contingency for later use when a specific trigger happens.
I... don't even know what you're trying to say here.

The spell is explicitly cast as part of casting Contingency. I really can't think of a way of making this clearer, because at this point your argument is literally just "the spell doesn't do what it says it does".


Would you allow this. Contingency: counterspell the next harmful spell that is cast on me.

No. Counterspell is not a spell that can target you (and it doesn't have a casting time of 1 action), so it's not a valid choice of Contingent spell. Exactly the same logic, but even more cut and dried.

[CorporateSlave]

Not exactly.
You can't choose something that targets a point in space, since there's no way to not target a point in space. For example.

Well per the Xanathar's "Invalid Spell Targets," RAW, actually you can by all means do this, it will just have no effect since a Creature is not a Valid Target for a spell that specifies a Target of a Point In Space. It does not separate "types" of targets, it only gives one example of a creature that is "believed to be a humanoid" but is not. That is just an example, not the entire rule.

I don't think at all this is the RAI, but it is in fact the RAW. This of course sort of contradicts the Targets section of the PHB which would lead one to believe a spell can only be cast at its designated Target specified.

Of course, this would still mean any of these spells would have no effect, and so why would one do this makes no sense. It does though, beg the question why the Contingency spell description bothers with "...that can target you" if in fact, any spell can target you per the clarification of Invalid Targets in Xanathar's (which also makes it perfectly clear if you are not a Valid Target for the spell it will still have no effect regardless).

[CorporateSlave]

No. Counterspell is not a spell that can target you (and it doesn't have a casting time of 1 action), so it's not a valid choice of Contingent spell. Exactly the same logic, but even more cut and dried.

Per Xanathar's Invalid Target rule, Counterspell can certainly target you (it will simply have no effect on you as an Invalid Target), but as you say the lack of a 1 Action casting time would prevent it's use with Contingency anyway.

[OzDragon]

OK lets break this down a bit.

Choose a spell of 5th level or lower that you can cast, that has a casting time of 1 action, and that can target you.

Does revivify tic all the boxes? Yes

You cast that spell—called the contingent spell—as part of casting contingency, expending spell slots for both, but the contingent spell doesn’t come into effect.

The spell does not have a target at this time due to it not coming into effect yet. The target is chosen by the spell (You) when the contingency goes off ( You die)

Instead, it takes effect when a certain circumstance occurs. You describe that circumstance when you cast the two spells.

Revivify when I die. Easy.

The contingent spell takes effect immediately after the circumstance is met for the first time, whether or not you want it to, and then contingency ends.



Its pretty clear if you read the spell that this works.

[Aelyn]

OK lets break this down a bit.

Choose a spell of 5th level or lower that you can cast, that has a casting time of 1 action, and that can target you.

Does revivify tic all the boxes? Yes

That's debatable, as evidenced by this entire thread. Can Revivify target you even if you're not "a creature that died within the last minute"? If not, then the entire premise falls down.

[OzDragon]

That's debatable, as evidenced by this entire thread. Can Revivify target you even if you're not "a creature that died within the last minute"? If not, then the entire premise falls down.

The spell can target you and does when the contingency comes into effect!

It's only really debatable if you overthink it.

[druid91]

Yeah. You pick the target, the spell tells you what it can target. The very same following line from what you are quoting: "A spell’s description tells you whether the spell Targets creatures, Objects, or a point of Origin for an area of effect (described below).". You choose, the spell tells you if it will have an effect. You make a choice, the spell tells you if it is a valid one.

For Contingency: you "Choose a spell [...] that can target you". If the choice isn't a valid one then there's no effect.




Sorry, i did miss your post.

Three times: once because it is a requirement for Contingency to have an effect at all. The second because you need to cast the spell. The third time you need to check if a spell can have any effect at all. Two and Three are usually one and the same and one doesn't really exists outside of Contingency - it is a requirement of that spell after all. Contingency does change all of that. And usually One and Two are checked at the same time - the spell to store has to be a spell that you can cast anyway.

It might not be that Three is intended: the Contingency does state that the spell "takes effect". However, the target section does tell us that targets are what is going to be affected by the spell - that which the spell has an effect on - and the spell tells us what it can affect. And Cont. also tells us that the spell will target you and only you even if the contingent spell could or would otherwise affect other creatures. Which could mean that it is meant to completely change all the "parameters" of the spell taking effect to "now it targets you and only you, regardless of form" as a change on the targeting requirements, instead as simply being a forced choice. However, there are other spells that work as changing the parameters of the spell - lifting concentration, extending duration... - that are way more explicit on what they actually do.

You're assuming 'That can target you.' means 'That can target you right now this instant as the spell is cast.'

Given the nature of contingency it makes more sense for it to be read as 'That could ever at any point conceivably target you.' which revivify could at some point concievably do.

You're also doing the very legallese nitpicking that is anathema to 5e design. The game wasn't designed to support treating it like a legal document.

[OzDragon]

You're assuming 'That can target you.' means 'That can target you right now this instant as the spell is cast.'

Given the nature of contingency it makes more sense for it to be read as 'That could ever at any point conceivably target you.' which revivify could at some point concievably do.

You're also doing the very legallese nitpicking that is anathema to 5e design. The game wasn't designed to support treating it like a legal document.


I also think people are confusing can target you with targets you this is what matters.

[Aelyn]

I also think people are confusing can target you with targets you this is what matters.
As I see it, the two big questions here are:

1) When Contingency says "a spell that can target you", does it mean "a spell that could target you at the time that you cast Contingency" or "a spell that could theoretically target you at any point in the future"?

2) Is Revivify "a spell that can target you" even if you're alive at the time it's cast?

If the answer to 1 is "any point in the future", it works. If the answer to 2 is "yes", it works. But if the answer to 1 is "as Contingency is cast" and the answer to 2 is "no", it doesn't work.

Obviously, I think that the answers line up so it doesn't work. Others disagree. But it makes it easier to have a meaningful discussion if you know what it is that's being debated.

[Aelyn]

You're assuming 'That can target you.' means 'That can target you right now this instant as the spell is cast.'

Say there was a spell that targeted "an Elf within 30 feet." If you were human, could you Contingency that spell? Because it's conceivable that you could die and get Reincarnated as an Elf, but I think if you tried that argument at any real table the rest of the table (including the DM) would give you blank stares at best.

[Esclados]

Consider if, in normal, non-contingency circumstances, if you can try to cast Revivify on a creature that hasn't died in the last minute - if it's dead too long, or it's actually still alive, or it was just a lifelike construct, or whatever. Does the spell discharge ineffectively, or does the DM have to say 'ah, that's invalid, you didn't do that, so don't spend your action, diamond, or spell slot?'

Or a more likely case, what if you try to Charm Person on a vampire?

Xanathar's has an expanded rule for this on page 85-86, Invalid Spell Targets. A short quote from it:

If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.

This suggests that if your campaign is using the expanded Xanathar's rules, you can definitively contingency revivify on yourself, knowing that it would be useless going off now, but will be helpful if you are dead.

[OzDragon]

Consider if, in normal, non-contingency circumstances, if you can try to cast Revivify on a creature that hasn't died in the last minute - if it's dead too long, or it's actually still alive, or it was just a lifelike construct, or whatever. Does the spell discharge ineffectively, or does the DM have to say 'ah, that's invalid, you didn't do that, so don't spend your action, diamond, or spell slot?'

Or a more likely case, what if you try to Charm Person on a vampire?

Xanathar's has an expanded rule for this on page 85-86, Invalid Spell Targets. A short quote from it:

If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.

This suggests that if your campaign is using the expanded Xanathar's rules, you can definitively contingency revivify on yourself, knowing that it would be useless going off now, but will be helpful if you are dead.

The bold is a yes. You cast the spell in this case is just has no effect due to the time has passed. I can understand the second part though and would be ok with that also.

But in this case there is no invalid spell target at the spell does not target anything till the circumstance happens. Try not to over think this.

[OzDragon]

Say there was a spell that targeted "an Elf within 30 feet." If you were human, could you Contingency that spell? Because it's conceivable that you could die and get Reincarnated as an Elf, but I think if you tried that argument at any real table the rest of the table (including the DM) would give you blank stares at best.

This in my opinion is just a ridiculous example as it has no bearing on the conversation. You would not try to cast a contingency for an elf if you were human in the first place.

[Jerrykhor]

There's no reason why Revivify wouldn't work with Contingency. It is clearly stated that the chosen spell doesn't come into effect until the trigger occurs.

[Gignere]

There's no reason why Revivify wouldn't work with Contingency. It is clearly stated that the chosen spell doesn't come into effect until the trigger occurs.

Obviously you are not a lawyer unlike half the folks posting in this thread. They are parsing every phrase, comma and period and decided because of that revivify is an illegal contingent. Thankfully I like my RPG in non legalese so contigent revivify would work in my game. Since it is totally a suboptimal choice.

[JackPhoenix]

Even reading with magnifying glass it can still be done... i'll repeat:

Round 1: Suicide
Round 2: Friendly priest Revivifies you
Round 3: Wish to duplicate contingency + Revivify

You can't use Wish to duplicate Contingency. Well, you can, but it doesn't work.

You have to cast the contingent spell as part of casting Contingency, but if you duplicate the Contingency's effect through Wish, you haven't done so. You now have Contingency's effect with no secondary spell attached to it. You can't use Wish with spell glyph option of Glyph of Warding for the same reason. Weird and likely not RAI, but RAW.


The spell does not have a target at this time due to it not coming into effect yet. The target is chosen by the spell (You) when the contingency goes off ( You die)

False. Choosing the spell's target is part of the spell's casting, not its effect's.

[OzDragon]

You can't use Wish to duplicate Contingency. Well, you can, but it doesn't work.

You have to cast the contingent spell as part of casting Contingency, but if you duplicate the Contingency's effect through Wish, you haven't done so. You now have Contingency's effect with no secondary spell attached to it. You can't use Wish with spell glyph option of Glyph of Warding for the same reason. Weird and likely not RAI, but RAW.



False. Choosing the spell's target is part of the spell's casting, not its effect's.

Except the spell is not cast until the condition is satisfied. At that point you need a target and it is granted by the contingency you made, If I die "cast" revivify on me. It is at this point you become the "target" of the spell cast by contingency which in this case is revivify. Also at this point you fit the requirements of being dead less than a minute.

Seriously, again, these circumstances are exactly why there is a contingency spell.

[Rukelnikov]

You can't use Wish to duplicate Contingency. Well, you can, but it doesn't work.

You have to cast the contingent spell as part of casting Contingency, but if you duplicate the Contingency's effect through Wish, you haven't done so. You now have Contingency's effect with no secondary spell attached to it. You can't use Wish with spell glyph option of Glyph of Warding for the same reason. Weird and likely not RAI, but RAW.

I see what you mean, however im not sure it doesnt work, the spell won't be cast, but the rest of the text remains, and the initial condition of choose a spell with 1 action cast time that can target you has been done. If anything you may get to not spend the slot for your contingent spell.

[Aelyn]

This in my opinion is just a ridiculous example as it has no bearing on the conversation.

Yes, it is an (intentionally) ridiculous example, but it uses exactly the same logic. It's reductio ad absurdum - following the logic through to its extremes and finding a result that is absurd.

Essentially, I'm trying to point out how the "could theoretically be cast on you at any point in the future if circumstances come out right" interpretation leads to bizarre results.


You would not try to cast a contingency for an elf if you were human in the first place.

I didn't ask if you would, I asked if you could.


Obviously you are not a lawyer unlike half the folks posting in this thread. They are parsing every phrase, comma and period and decided because of that revivify is an illegal contingent. Thankfully I like my RPG in non legalese so contigent revivify would work in my game. Since it is totally a suboptimal choice.

My argument is based entirely on one phrase - "a spell that can target you". A single phrase in the wording of the spell we're discussing. My argument is just "Revivify targets something that's dead, so if you're alive, it can't target you."

The "it's legal" side are talking about using rules in Xanathar's - an expansion that didn't exist when Contingency was printed - that was telling you how to resolve an edge case scenario revolving around things that are literally described as "invalid targets" to argue that anything can be a target of any spell, even if it doesn't come close to the spell's criteria.

Sorry to say it, but the way I see it, the people arguing you can do it are the ones relying on stretched interpretations and shaky logic.

[Aquillion]

Yes, i bet you can start casting a spell without an INVALID target :D"Invalid target" isn't even meaningful in that sense Again, you're trying to apply MTG logic.

D&D spells work differently. You cast a spell by going through its text and doing what it says. Targets are chosen and checked when you hit the appropriate point in the text. And, for the record, I think you can absolutely cast a spell on an "invalid" target, eg. you can cast Phantasmal Force on an undead creature, which it will fail to effect.


It - is - completely - irrelevant.

We know that for Contingency the spell has to be a spell that can target you. It doesn't matter yet if when the spell will have an effect it will be able to target you.

For Contingency to have an effect, the target of Contingency - which includes the spell that is going to stasis since it IS something that you choose to have Contingency affect and it is listed as what Contingency targets - needs to be a spell that can target you. A spell that targets an object doesn't target a creature, even if the creature is going to become an object. It WILL be able to target that specific creature, but as the present it doesn't. Contingency has effect when it is cast. So you need to know at that point if Contingency - and not the spell that is being put into stasis - is going to have an effect. Because if it doesn't "you" are not under Contingency. "You" do not blip to Detect Magic or any other divination effect that will report "you" have a magical effect going on. *Sort of, It depends on how one rules on what the target that suffers no effect is.*
Again, you're just making up rules (or assuming MTG ones apply.) D&D targeting isn't that complex - we don't have convoluted MTG-style targeting and valid-target rules. Revivify has a range of "touch", ergo it can target you.

Imagine this situation. I'm playing dead. My buddy, thinking I've died, dashes at me and says "I cast Revivify on them!"

What happens? They waste their spell slot and their 300 gold, plainly (we can see that this is the case from the Phantasmal Force example above.) But they do cast the spell, and it does target me at touch range. It just doesn't do anything, because its effect can't be resolved when the target that was touched isn't a corpse.


My argument is based entirely on one phrase - "a spell that can target you". A single phrase in the wording of the spell we're discussing. My argument is just "Revivify targets something that's dead, so if you're alive, it can't target you."Incorrect. The spell's range is "touch", not "touch dead target." It can 100% target a living creature; it will just fail to have any effect on them.

Consider if you tried to cast it on a creature who has been dead for too long. You can do so! It just won't do anything. When you try to cast a spell with a target that doesn't fit its description, the spell is cast, but to no effect.


The "it's legal" side are talking about using rules in Xanathar's - an expansion that didn't exist when Contingency was printed - that was telling you how to resolve an edge case scenario revolving around things that are literally described as "invalid targets" to argue that anything can be a target of any spell, even if it doesn't come close to the spell's criteria.Xanathar's tells us how to handle complex targeting questions, which don't come up in the main rules at all.

Meanwhile, you're just inventing your own homebrewed casting and targeting-restriction rules (based on MTG ones, from what I can tell) whole-cloth. If you want to convince people that these homebrewed targeting and casting rules are actually in the book, you need to point to them - show us where there are rules restricting what you can cast spells on beyond the "target" line.

Because my reading is that you can 100% cast Revivify on a living target (it will just do nothing), and everything I've seen in the rules seems to support that interpretation; it also seems to reflect how spells are usually handled when eg. someone chooses the wrong sort of target by accident.

Your argument seems to boil down to "it's an INVALID target, and, per MTG rules, you can't cast spells on an invalid target", which seems baffling.


Say there was a spell that targeted "an Elf within 30 feet." If you were human, could you Contingency that spell? Because it's conceivable that you could die and get Reincarnated as an Elf, but I think if you tried that argument at any real table the rest of the table (including the DM) would give you blank stares at best.
Blank stares, but then they'd nod and say "sure, if you want, though it probably will do nothing when it goes off."

As to why, let me flip that around on you. Suppose I saw a hooded stranger and cast that spell on them. As it turns out, they are not an elf. What happens? Do you think any DM would say "no, you can't cast that spell at all; choose a different action?"

No. In that situation, your spell is cast, and does nothing. You can cast a spell with a target that doesn't fit its description (the reason the clarification in Xanathar's allows this is because it is necessary on account of the game not being MTG and not having perfect knowledge.) It will be cast successfully, though it will generally do nothing. Therefore, I can obviously contingency such a spell on myself.

Or, another example. Suppose I have a spell that says to cast it on a Good person, or people with some other feature that isn't necessarily obvious and tangible. My character doesn't know if that applies to them. Can they contingency that spell on themselves? If they attempt to do so, do they immediately discover it fails, or do they discover only when the contingency goes off?

I would argue that, given the above rules, you obviously only discover whether you fit the criteria when the spell goes off (and it is only checked at that point.) Ergo, I can also contingency revivify.


False. Choosing the spell's target is part of the spell's casting, not its effect's.
Point me to the place in the rules where you're getting this from, please.

[Jerrykhor]

For those who think its impossible to cast a spell that requires a target but with no target in sight, go back and read up on the rules of 'ready action to cast spell'. The moment you say 'I ready to Guiding Bolt the first enemy that appears,' the spell slot is spent, therefore the spell is already 'cast', but no effect or target.

Similarly, Contingency implies that the spell is kind of held back until the trigger, which sounds similar to ready action when you'd normally specify the triggering event.

I'm pretty sure if Aelyn was my DM, his reply would be, "Error 404: Dead creature not found."

Play with a human DM guys, not a robot.

[Aelyn]

Your argument seems to boil down to "it's an INVALID target, and, per MTG rules, you can't cast spells on an invalid target", which seems baffling.

I have not mentioned MTG at all in this discussion, and I don't see why you're bringing it in. We're talking about D&D here.

The reason I think that you have to be a valid target is because, if it doesn't, that line in Contingency saying "Choose a spell... that can target you" is literally meaningless. I prefer to assume explicit restrictions written into the game's text are intended to be relevant.

My argument is based on what Contingency says, not the generic casting rules.


As to why, let me flip that around on you. Suppose I saw a hooded stranger and cast that spell on them. As it turns out, they are not an elf. What happens? Do you think any DM would say "no, you can't cast that spell at all; choose a different action?"

No. In that situation, your spell is cast, and does nothing. You can cast a spell with a target that doesn't fit its description (the reason the clarification in Xanathar's allows this is because it is necessary on account of the game not being MTG and not having perfect knowledge.) It will be cast successfully, though it will generally do nothing. Therefore, I can obviously contingency such a spell on myself.
No, I would expect them to say "Okay, you cast the spell" while thinking "...but as they can't be targeted by it, the spell does nothing." That's why Contingency wouldn't work with it - you can normally cast a spell even if you can't target what you're trying to target, but Contingency explicitly disallows that.


Or, another example. Suppose I have a spell that says to cast it on a Good person, or people with some other feature that isn't necessarily obvious and tangible. My character doesn't know if that applies to them. Can they contingency that spell on themselves? If they attempt to do so, do they immediately discover it fails, or do they discover only when the contingency goes off?

I think you're always aware of whether a spell that you cast on yourself is in effect, aren't you? Not sure of that off the top of my head. At my table, I'd say that you do discover that Contingency has failed/succeeded - it's an unusual side effect of the spell's restrictions that you can use it as a convoluted tool for introspection. I'd probably then check the book after the session to see if it clarifies.


I'm pretty sure if Aelyn was my DM, his reply would be, "Error 404: Dead creature not found."

Play with a human DM guys, not a robot.

Do you have to be rude about this? There's no need for ad-hom.

For the record, my response to an attempt to cast Revivify on a lifelike mannequin (for example) would be along the lines of "You feel the magical energy flow through you and into the body, but there's no apparent effect." I might also then give Advantage if the same character then decides to investigate the mannequin, as they have extra information that would help them figure it out.

If someone tried to cast Contingency-Revivify in my games, the answer would be "You can't - you're alive, so it can't target you." In the same way, if someone tried to cast Contingency-Knock in my game, I'd say "you can't - Knock can't target you."

[JackPhoenix]

Except the spell is not cast until the condition is satisfied. At that point you need a target and it is granted by the contingency you made, If I die "cast" revivify on me. It is at this point you become the "target" of the spell cast by contingency which in this case is revivify. Also at this point you fit the requirements of being dead less than a minute.

Seriously, again, these circumstances are exactly why there is a contingency spell.

The spell is *cast* when you cast Contingency. It doesn't *take effect* until the triggering condition come. Contingency's description is very clear on that, not once it mentions the spell is cast when the trigger happens, while it mentions multiple time that the spell "comes into effect" or "takes effect". Compare to spell glyph version of GoW, that says the spell is cast when the glyph is triggered.

[OzDragon]

OK, I will say this at my table it works just fine as these situations are exactly what contingency is for.

I disagree with those that would do it differently. I would however respect their decision if they were the DM.

Have a wonderful day all.

[CorporateSlave]

The reason I think that you have to be a valid target is because, if it doesn't, that line in Contingency saying "Choose a spell... that can target you" is literally meaningless. I prefer to assume explicit restrictions written into the game's text are intended to be relevant.


Absent the Invalid Target rule in XGTE, I could buy this argument.

Considering the Invalid Target rule in XGTE, I would have to rule per RAW, that while this does effectively make the "that can target you" clause in Contingency meaningless, the Contingency spell description in the PHB was written before XGTE, and so could very well have RAW in it that is expanded/clarified by a later publication.

Besides, for that matter even as the PHB wording of Contingency goes, why does it only say "that can target you," if what they really mean is "that can target you when cast by you?" Absent that qualification would Revivify meet the requirements?
A Spell you can cast - yes (presumably)
Casting time of 1 Action - yes
Can target you - yes (if you were dead someone else could target you with the Revivify spell, even before the Invalid Target rule even came up - whereas a "Point in space" Target spell would not have worked here)

In any campaign I DM, I would allow it anyway - a creative use of a 3rd and 6th level spell slot costing 1800 gp in components for a one shot save when killed. Not game breaking at those levels of play.

[Hail Tempus]

Obviously you are not a lawyer unlike half the folks posting in this thread. They are parsing every phrase, comma and period and decided because of that revivify is an illegal contingent. Thankfully I like my RPG in non legalese so contigent revivify would work in my game. Since it is totally a suboptimal choice. Yeah, I think people need to take a step back from the overanalysis.

What's the purpose of Contingency? It's meant to essentially store a spell for later, and have that spell benefit the caster if a certain circumstance is met. Having a Revivify trigger if you die seems completely in line with what Contingency is supposed to do.

Anyway, 95% of the time, you'd be better off having a 5th level Cure Wounds as your contingent spell.

[AHF]

Say there was a spell that targeted "an Elf within 30 feet." If you were human, could you Contingency that spell? Because it's conceivable that you could die and get Reincarnated as an Elf, but I think if you tried that argument at any real table the rest of the table (including the DM) would give you blank stares at best.

This seems to all come down to the interpretation of what this clause means:


that can target you

(1) A spell that could theoretically target you at the time the contingency goes into effect

or

(2) A spell that could target you as the contingency is established

For people with interpretation (2), then neither revivify or Empower Elf (the name I'm giving your theoretical spell) would work.

For people with interpretation (1) I think logically there should be no problem with a human who wants to cast a contingency with this theoretical Empower Elf spell. As you point out, there are multiple game mechanics that could result in a PC changing race from human to elf. So if the test is simply whether a spell could theoretically target the player character in the future then this seems fine.

For DMs running with interpretation (2), it also seems fine from a game balance perspective. You want to set up a contingency something along the lines of "if I become an Elf and get into combat then I want this Empower Elf spell to trigger"? Fine. Seems like a waste of a highly useful contingency spell on a very low probability scenario but have at it.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Yeah, I think people need to take a step back from the overanalysis.

What's the purpose of Contingency? It's meant to essentially store a spell for later, and have that spell benefit the caster if a certain circumstance is met. Having a Revivify trigger if you die seems completely in line with what Contingency is supposed to do.

Anyway, 95% of the time, you'd be better off having a 5th level Cure Wounds as your contingent spell.

Or false life which your more likely to have.

[ThePolarBear]

Choose a spell of 5th level or lower that you can cast, that has a casting time of 1 action, and that can target you.

Does revivify tic all the boxes? Yes

No. It could. But if you are alive and well, it can't target you. So, it doesn't check the last part. This makes Contingency have an invalid target - the spell that is going to be affected by Contingency itself, the thing you choose. The thing that is thusly defined by the PHB as a target:

"A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)."

Non exaustive list, mind you: Dispel Magic clearly targets a magical effect, and nothing of the above is one.


You cast that spell—called the contingent spell—as part of casting contingency, expending spell slots for both, but the contingent spell doesn’t come into effect.

The spell does not have a target at this time due to it not coming into effect yet. The target is chosen by the spell (You) when the contingency goes off ( You die)

It's irrelevant. That you would be a valid target for Revivify when you are a creature that just died is not in question.


Instead, it takes effect when a certain circumstance occurs. You describe that circumstance when you cast the two spells.

It doesn't. That's the whole point. And the reason is not because it could not work when the conditions happen. But because you have to check the validity of the target when you have Contingency take effect - if not even when you cast it at all - because you NEED to know if Contingency does take effect!


The spell can target you and does when the contingency comes into effect!

It's only really debatable if you overthink it.

Not discounting the application of the rule from Xanathar to Contingency itself doesn't mean overthinking something!


You're assuming 'That can target you.' means 'That can target you right now this instant as the spell is cast.'

As i do with Fireball. As i do with every single other spell. As i do with the example of the kid i made before.
And even if didn't, i still ask myself why if Contingency required a spell that could target me but only at the time when some condition happen... why doesn't it say so? Why ask for a spell that i can cast - now - 11 words before, and than change meaning without a more correct "might", or "could", since we are going hypotetical?
Why do the rule for targeting spells use the same notion to point out as "can" what a spell lists as part of the description?


Given the nature of contingency it makes more sense for it to be read as 'That could ever at any point conceivably target you.' which revivify could at some point concievably do.

Given the name of Chill Touch, i would expect it to deal cold damage at touch range.
Given that we do not have any practical real world experience of spellcasting, i try to not to attribute anything more than what i can read and the bare minimum required to make a spell work - as part of how the rules are written -. What i do for my games it's a different kind of topic, just as the fact that there's no specific exception that would make Contingency work at all as the rules are written - no exception is made to be able to cast the spell that you have to put into the Contingency - and i don't go for the most "convenient" reading, too - that the spell is cast regardless, and "can you can cast" means that "it could ever at any point be cast".


You're also doing the very legallese nitpicking that is anathema to 5e design. The game wasn't designed to support treating it like a legal document.

No, it really isn't. It's just trying to understand what the limitations of the spells as they are to try to deduce what the intention behind was. Which leads to try to answer questions as "Can you cast contigency Revivify" at the most objective point possible, explaining the why of that reasoning so that people can reach their own conclusions.

This does lead to argumentation, and a prehaps excessive amount of words.


I also think people are confusing can target you with targets you this is what matters.

Yes. A spell can target you when the list of the targets on the spell description includes what the caster has chosen for the spell to target. It does target you when you are on that list and when you are chosen as a target by the target. However it can't target you when you are not on the list, and still can't target you when the caster has chosen you as the chosen target, even if you are the chosen target for the spell - and this leads to the paradoxical rule on Xanathar. The spell still can't target you, yet it does.


This suggests that if your campaign is using the expanded Xanathar's rules, you can definitively contingency revivify on yourself, knowing that it would be useless going off now, but will be helpful if you are dead.

Are you a spell? No? So, what does it matter if YOU "can target a spell to something" (edit urg English... let's leave it here), when what you are asked to do is to check if THE SPELL can target something?


"Invalid target" isn't even meaningful in that sense Again, you're trying to apply MTG logic.

Your phrase:
"Are you allowed to start casting a spell without an invalid target?"
My joke answer:
Yes, i'm pretty sure you can start casting a spell with a valid target.

See the joke? :D

Considering that:
"A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic."
A target is something that is going to be chosen and that is going to be affected by the magic.

"A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)."
A non-exaustive list of possible targets and an indication on where to find where spells have their limitations on what they target.

Xanathar's:
"INVALID SPELL TARGETS"
With multiple mentions of what a valid and invalid target is, and invalid targets end up not being affected by the spell magic...

I care to tell that you that "invalid spell targets" is very meaningful.


D&D spells work differently. You cast a spell by going through its text and doing what it says. Targets are chosen and checked when you hit the appropriate point in the text. And, for the record, I think you can absolutely cast a spell on an "invalid" target, eg. you can cast Phantasmal Force on an undead creature, which it will fail to effect.

Which is -irrelevant- because Contingency creates an exception..

5e follows an exception based system. To know if you can or cannot target what you are targeting you are required to "check" that condition. If you don't, you can't have an answer.
Contingency requires that when you have to choose a spell. You need to check the chosen spell targets. Revivify will, under non-specific circumstances, fail that check at the appropriate point in the text: the first few lines. By your own reasoning Revivify should fail. Why do you believe otherwise?


Again, you're just making up rules (or assuming MTG ones apply.)

No i don't. I don't play MTG.


D&D targeting isn't that complex - we don't have convoluted MTG-style targeting and valid-target rules.

Yes we have. A character can choose a target. The spell tells you its valid targets - what it can target. Contingency asks you to check. The fact that a character can choose something that is not valid doesn't make the spell have it as a valid target.


Revivify has a range of "touch", ergo it can target you.

No, its target just needs to be in that range. "The target of a spell must be within the spell's range." Again: "A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)."

Range is not in the description - as a general rule.




Imagine this situation. I'm playing dead. My buddy, thinking I've died, dashes at me and says "I cast Revivify on them!"
What happens? They waste their spell slot and their 300 gold, plainly (we can see that this is the case from the Phantasmal Force example above.) But they do cast the spell, and it does target me at touch range. It just doesn't do anything, because its effect can't be resolved when the target that was touched isn't a corpse.

And we know this because a non-recently dead creature is not listed as a potential target in the spell description, exactly as the rules tells us, right?
The creature that casts the spell chooses the target but it is the spell description - "the spell" - that tells us what the spell can target.
And Contingency requires a spell that can target you. Not that a creature can target you with the spell.


It can 100% target a living creature;

It might, but it can't. That's why you know you have a case of "invalid target". And it might because the rules let PCs the ability to target something that a spell couldn't.


Consider if you tried to cast it on a creature who has been dead for too long. You can do so!

Keyword here: you. That is however not what Contingency asks for.


Because my reading is that you can 100% cast Revivify on a living target (it will just do nothing),

Keyword: you.


Your argument seems to boil down to "it's an INVALID target, and, per MTG rules, you can't cast spells on an invalid target", which seems baffling.

No. The argument is that spells have valid and invalid targets: things that are in their description and things that are not. Contingency asks for a spell that has "you" as a target.
The fact that a caster can select you as the target for any spell is of no relevance.

[Tanarii]

It feels to me like you've simply assumed MTG-style rules,I'm just gonna stop you right here to make it clear that the only thing I'm reading is the text of Contingency, in plain English. And the arguments against it, which I find to have logical holes in them.

In fact. If it weren't for the arguments against having so many holes in them, I'd be inclined to agree it should be possible. It's only when bad arguments have been put forth in defense of it being possible and they've been shot down that I've become convinced it's not possible.

[Hail Tempus]

Or false life which your more likely to have.I seem to recall that temporary hit points don’t help you if you’re at zero hit points.

I guess you would just make the trigger be “Cast False Life if I go down to 25% of my hit points”, or something similar.

[Jerrykhor]

I'm just gonna stop you right here to make it clear that the only thing I'm reading is the text of Contingency, in plain English. And the arguments against it, which I find to have logical holes in them.

In fact. If it weren't for the arguments against having so many holes in them, I'd be inclined to agree it should be possible. It's only when bad arguments have been put forth in defense of it being possible and they've been shot down that I've become convinced it's not possible.

If you don't want it to work, then it won't work. I've read both spell texts, they do work. The fact that you aren't a valid target doesn't matter because the spell isn't cast yet.

The spell slot expanded is cast into Contingency, then when it triggers, Contingency casts it on you. Simple as that. Its pretty much the same Readying to cast a spell. By your logic, Readying to cast a spell that requires targets won't work, because the spell slot is expanded the moment you Ready it, and you consider it as 'cast'. It is not.

In fact, Contingency is almost like Ready cast Revivify on the trigger that the target dies. Nowhere in the rules says you can't target invalid creatures. You can try, but the spell simply fails. Here, the spell won't fail because the conditions are met when the spell triggers.

[Aelyn]

If you don't want it to work, then it won't work. I've read both spell texts, they do work. The fact that you aren't a valid target doesn't matter because the spell isn't cast yet.

The spell slot expanded is cast into Contingency, then when it triggers, Contingency casts it on you. Simple as that.
If you have read both spells (or earlier in the thread where this was addressed), then you know the underlined bit is straight-up false. You cast the Contingent spell as part of casting Contingency; it's only the effect that is delayed.

Its pretty much the same Readying to cast a spell. By your logic, Readying to cast a spell that requires targets won't work, because the spell slot is expanded the moment you Ready it, and you consider it as 'cast'. It is not.

In fact, Contingency is almost like Ready cast Revivify on the trigger that the target dies. Nowhere in the rules says you can't target invalid creatures. You can try, but the spell simply fails. Here, the spell won't fail because the conditions are met when the spell triggers.
Readying an action to cast is different to Contingency in several ways:

- You can choose whether or not to use a readied action.
- Contingency doesn't use your Concentration.
- The Ready a Spell action doesn't say anything about Readied spell's targets, giving it the flexibility to choose a target that only becomes available at the time it comes into effect.

The way I see it, Revivify is an invalid target of Contingency. So you can attempt to cast Contingency - Revivify, spending the 6th level spell slot, but Contingency then fails because it has an invalid target (per Xanathar's targeting rules). I shortcut that to "you can't" to stop players wasting resources on literally impossible tasks.

[Lord Vukodlak]

If you have read both spells (or earlier in the thread where this was addressed), then you know the underlined bit is straight-up false. You cast the Contingent spell as part of casting Contingency; it's only the effect that is delayed.


The way I see it, Revivify is an invalid target of Contingency. So you can attempt to cast Contingency - Revivify, spending the 6th level spell slot, but Contingency then fails because it has an invalid target (per Xanathar's targeting rules).

As per the Xanathar targeting rules you can target someone with charm person whose not a person. The spell simply has no effect, by that same reasoning you can target someone with Revivify whose not dead or has been dead for longer then a minute the only consequence is spell has no effect.

And as you said "only its effect is delayed" when it comes to Contingency. So if you argue Xanthar rules then it works.

So by the logic some people are using you can't do Contingency lesser restoration unless you are Diseased, Blinded, Deafened, Paralyzed, or Poisoned at the time you cast the contingency spell. Nor could you use "remove curse" in contingency unless you were already cursed.

If you ask "am I a valid target" when the Contingency is cast you are over complicating the spell. You should only ask that question when the Contingency is triggered.

[Arkhios]

As per the Xanathar targeting rules you can target someone with charm person whose not a person. The spell simply has no effect, by that same reasoning you can target someone with Revivify whose not dead or has been dead for longer then a minute the only consequence is spell has no effect.

And as you said "only its effect is delayed" when it comes to Contingency. So if you argue Xanthar rules then it works.

So by the logic some people are using you can't do Contingency lesser restoration unless you are Diseased, Blinded, Deafened, Paralyzed, or Poisoned at the time you cast the contingency spell. Nor could you use "remove curse" in contingency unless you were already cursed.

If you ask "am I a valid target" when the Contingency is cast you are over complicating the spell. You should only ask that question when the Contingency is triggered.

Exactly. All in all, this whole nay-saying is unnecessary hair-splitting.

[Hail Tempus]

Exactly. All in all, this whole nay-saying is unnecessary hair-splitting. D&D 5e's rules aren't written with the specificity of a complicated legal document. They're meant to be usable and understandable by fairly young players.

The level of nit-picking that some people are doing on this thread really doesn't make sense to me. The writers didn't consider how the wording of every spell interplayed with every other spell. What, exactly, are the nitpickers trying to accomplish by banning a Contingency+Revive? Does anyone really think it's a combination that somehow breaks the game?

[Segev]

I tend to find games more fun when people don't spend their time trying to bend the rules to their absolute breaking point in the name of getting spells to do things that they're not meant to do. Maybe you enjoy playing "find the loophole", but I'd rather stick to D&D.

(In other words, no need to be so antagonistic)

Personally, while I can kinda see where the "it works" side are coming from if I tilt my head, I still think that the spell wording is pretty clear and that it takes a few steps of somewhat dubious reasoning to come to the conclusion that it's intended that way.

But neither position is inherently "bad" or "unfun", and trying to frame it that way is not conducive to a reasonable debate or actually coming up with an answer - it's just a pointless ad-hom attack.

If you want to argue against the point being made by the "go ahead and let it work" crowd is making, you're attacking it wrong. Their position is "it seems in theme, doesn't seem overpowered, so why not?" You need to provide the "why not." And "because a close reading of the exact targeting mechanics of revivify, if you don't disagree with my analysis of what they are and how they work, would preclude it," isn't going to cut it. The two core points they're resting it on are: "It seems balanced enough" and "It seems in theme." You're half-way approaching the latter point, but you've got a hard road to travel to demonstrate that it's out of theme. You can argue it's on the periphery with the "close reading about targeting" argument, but that, at worst, puts it in "DM ruling" territory.

Your best bet would be to explain why the writers would have actively written the spells soas not to be compatible, which would be attacking the "seems balanced" point. Or, you need to discuss the theme of contingency and why revivify falls outside of it, but, say, cure wounds does not. I think that's a hard case to make: "I want something to happen in case this other thing happens" being triggered by the worst-case scenario of "I died" seems pretty on-point, to me.

[Aelyn]

If you want to argue against the point being made by the "go ahead and let it work" crowd is making, you're attacking it wrong. Their position is "it seems in theme, doesn't seem overpowered, so why not?" You need to provide the "why not."
... The question wasn't "do you think it should be a valid choice" or "how would you play it", it was:


as the title says is the revivify spell a valid Target for this spell

We're debating what the rules are, not what would be more fun. In that context, these points are completely irrelevant:


The two core points they're resting it on are: "It seems balanced enough" and "It seems in theme."

I even said, way back on page 2:

Okay, I think it's clear at this point that the answer is "RAW is debatable, check with your DM if this is something you want to build towards."

Saying "It seems balanced, so why not" isn't an argument about what the rules are; at best it's HWYPI. Which is fine, and I wouldn't begrudge any DM for making the call to allow it, but not what was actually asked.

[Pex]

D&D 5e's rules aren't written with the specificity of a complicated legal document. They're meant to be usable and understandable by fairly young players.

The level of nit-picking that some people are doing on this thread really doesn't make sense to me. The writers didn't consider how the wording of every spell interplayed with every other spell. What, exactly, are the nitpickers trying to accomplish by banning a Contingency+Revive? Does anyone really think it's a combination that somehow breaks the game?

My guess is it feels like the player is trying to get away with something. PCs normally cannot bring themselves back from the dead. It takes the Clone spell to do that. Now here's a way to do it earlier and relatively easy to do more than once. It feels wrong, so it must be wrong.

[Hail Tempus]

My guess is it feels like the player is trying to get away with something. PCs normally cannot bring themselves back from the dead. It takes the Clone spell to do that. Now here's a way to do it earlier and relatively easy to do more than once. It feels wrong, so it must be wrong.I mean, if a wizard wants to waste 5 levels into cleric, or a bard wants to use two of their magical secret slots for a a contingency that might come up a handful of times? More power to them, I suppose.

[Aquillion]

Xanathar's:
"INVALID SPELL TARGETS"
With multiple mentions of what a valid and invalid target is, and invalid targets end up not being affected by the spell magic...

I care to tell that you that "invalid spell targets" is very meaningful.But you can target them, it just has no effect. Therefore, you've conceded that revivify is a spell that "can target you" (it just won't do anything if you're alive at the time), and, therefore, the rest of your arguments - which hinges on a houserule that you are not allowed to cast a spell on such targets at all, which you've now conceded is not the case per the RAW in Xanathar's - falls apart.

If you want to add a houserule of "you can't knowingly cast a spell on an invalid target", that's your call? But RAW is very very clear that you can do so. And, again, it feels like you're just applying the MTG definition and meaning of the term; in D&D, it's an informal term for what happens when you cast a spell on a target that doesn't fit what the description demands.

You can do so. You can cast Revivify on a living target! This is indisputable under the Xanathar's rules - otherwise, there wouldn't need to be rules saying "the target is unaffected."

Therefore, you can contingency Revivify; it just won't do anything if it goes off when you're alive.


Beyond that, Contingency doesn't even say "a spell that can target you right now." It merely says that it's a spell that can target you. Revivify is clearly a spell that can sometimes target me.

[sithlordnergal]

I'd say yes, nothing about it suggests that its an invalid target for Contingency. Lets look at the requirements:


1) Choose a spell of or lower that you can cast, that has a Casting Time of 1 action, and that can target you:

Revivify is a Touch spell that takes 1 action to cast. I'd say that it checks off this box. You can target yourself with Touch spells, unless you wanna start arguing that you canst cast Cure Wounds on yourself, and Revivify takes an 1 action to cast

----
2) You cast that spell, called the contingent spell, as part of casting contingency, expending Spell Slots for both, but the contingent spell doesn't come into effect. Instead, it takes effect when a certain circumstance occurs:

So, for this bit lets look at a magic item that has a similar effect, the Ring of Spell Storing. "Any creature can Cast a Spell of 1st through 5th level into the ring by touching the ring as the spell is cast. The spell has no effect, other than to be stored in the ring."

So, if you cast Revivify into a Ring of Spell Storing, do you have to have a valid target at the time of the casting? Or does it get stored for later use? If it does get stored, then its no different then Contingency's "the contingent spell doesn't come into effect. Instead, it takes effect when a certain circumstance occurs"

---
3) You describe that circumstance when you cast the two Spells:

Ok, this is pretty simple. The spell goes off when you die, there's your circumstance. That works.

---
4) The contingent spell takes effect immediately after the circumstance is met for the first time, whether or not you want it to, and then contingency ends:

Again, nothing too big here that's an issue. As soon as the circumstance happens, in this case "When you die", the effects of Revivify take effect. So, what are the effects of Revivify? They are "You touch a creature that has died within the last minute. That creature returns to life with 1 hit point."

---
Given that the trigger for Contingency was "When you die", you are dead by the time Revivify's effects take place. Not before, not 1 minute later, as soon as you reach 0 HP and have 3 death saves, or take enough damage to instantly kill you. Therefore, at that moment, you are a creature that has died within the last minute, and it brings you back to 1hp.

I mean, honestly, if you'd allow Revivify to be cast into a Ring of Spell Storing, then you should be fine with it being cast as a Contingency spell. The wording is nearly identical, with the only differences being that with the Ring it's specifically stated to be stored in the ring, while with Contingency it's just considered to the contingent spell.

[Aquillion]

Question for everyone arguing that it can't be contingencied:

Do you think you can Contingency Feather Fall? Because Feather Fall is, to me, an iconic example of a contingency spell, yet its text reads "Choose up to five falling creatures within range."

Obviously if you don't think you can contingency Revivify on account of not being dead when setting it up, that would mean you can't contingency Feather Fall on account of not being a falling creature when setting it up. In fact, while 5e lists no examples, in all prior editions Feather Fall was literally listed in the spell as one of the iconic Contingencies. Do you actually believe it's intended to be forbidden in 5e?

Because that seems to be the inexorable implication of the arguments people are making above.

I have never, ever, ever heard of anyone even remotely raising the objection that you can't contingency Feather Fall - obviously you can. I think the fact that objections are raised to Revivify and not Feather Fall, even though the wording and rules issues are strictly identical in both cases, shows that the real issue here that makes people drag their heels isn't a rules interpretation but a general sense of "no, players can't revive themselves, that's cheap and I must find an argument against it somewhere."

Nobody has that reaction to Feather Fall (which is obviously intended to be contingencied, to the point where it was previously listed as an iconic example of a contingency), so they don't drag their heels and don't try to grasp for spurious rules arguments to stop it.

(Or is the argument going to be "to Contingency Feather Fall, you must do a little hop during the 10-minute casting of Contingency?" Because that seems absurd.)

[JackPhoenix]

Question for everyone arguing that it can't be contingencied:

Do you think you can Contingency Feather Fall?

No. Feather Fall is cast as reaction, not as 1 action, so it's not valid for Contingency.

[Aquillion]

No. Feather Fall is cast as reaction, not as 1 action, so it's not valid for Contingency.What, really? Geez, I didn't notice that. What an odd thing for them to break between editions.

[sithlordnergal]

What, really? Geez, I didn't notice that. What an odd thing for them to break between editions.

Ehh, it makes sense for this edition to be honest. Otherwise you'd be falling for at least a second or two before it goes off...which can be dangerous. According to Xanathar's, p. 77, there is an optional rule where if you fall at a great height you fall at a rate of 500ft. per round. If we go by that logic, even if Featherfall only takes 1 second to cast as an action, you'd fall a minimum of 83.3 feet before it goes off.

[Jerrykhor]

Question for everyone arguing that it can't be contingencied:

Do you think you can Contingency Feather Fall? Because Feather Fall is, to me, an iconic example of a contingency spell, yet its text reads "Choose up to five falling creatures within range."

Obviously if you don't think you can contingency Revivify on account of not being dead when setting it up, that would mean you can't contingency Feather Fall on account of not being a falling creature when setting it up. In fact, while 5e lists no examples, in all prior editions Feather Fall was literally listed in the spell as one of the iconic Contingencies. Do you actually believe it's intended to be forbidden in 5e?

Because that seems to be the inexorable implication of the arguments people are making above.

I have never, ever, ever heard of anyone even remotely raising the objection that you can't contingency Feather Fall - obviously you can. I think the fact that objections are raised to Revivify and not Feather Fall, even though the wording and rules issues are strictly identical in both cases, shows that the real issue here that makes people drag their heels isn't a rules interpretation but a general sense of "no, players can't revive themselves, that's cheap and I must find an argument against it somewhere."

Nobody has that reaction to Feather Fall (which is obviously intended to be contingencied, to the point where it was previously listed as an iconic example of a contingency), so they don't drag their heels and don't try to grasp for spurious rules arguments to stop it.

(Or is the argument going to be "to Contingency Feather Fall, you must do a little hop during the 10-minute casting of Contingency?" Because that seems absurd.)

Wow now that i re-read Feather Fall's text, its funny that they mention 'falling creatures'. I have a feeling they write this assuming people would only use this when free-falling, not that you must be a falling creature to be a valid target. The writers surely assume that humans are reading this, and not like some of the robots here who think this is a law book or something. Because there is no where in the book that define what a falling creature is.

Anyway, you could probably jump a few inches off the ground while casting Feather Fall as a Contingency spell, and bam, you are a falling creature! The downside is that, you have to tell your party members that they weren't a falling creature when you Contingency this spell, so they don't get the buff!

[JackPhoenix]

Ehh, it makes sense for this edition to be honest. Otherwise you'd be falling for at least a second or two before it goes off...which can be dangerous. According to Xanathar's, p. 77, there is an optional rule where if you fall at a great height you fall at a rate of 500ft. per round. If we go by that logic, even if Featherfall only takes 1 second to cast as an action, you'd fall a minimum of 83.3 feet before it goes off.

Time measurements are irrelevant. What's relevant is that you can only take actions on your turn. THAT'S why Feather Fall is reaction.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Wow now that i re-read Feather Fall's text, its funny that they mention 'falling creatures'. I have a feeling they write this assuming people would only use this when free-falling, not that you must be a falling creature to be a valid target. The writers surely assume that humans are reading this, and not like some of the robots here who think this is a law book or something. Because there is no where in the book that define what a falling creature is.

Anyway, you could probably jump a few inches off the ground while casting Feather Fall as a Contingency spell, and bam, you are a falling creature!

You want nit picky? The rules for jumping don't specify that your descent counts as falling, the only definition we have of falling is within a distance you would take damage (10ft and higher) which would be the minimum distance between you and the ground to be considered a falling creature.


A fall from a great height is one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer. At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6. The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking damage from the fall.

On topic: I like knowing what RAW likely is, which I'm more convinced in this case is that you can't cast revivify using contingency, with that said I would definitely allow the interaction in game.

[Jerrykhor]

You want nit picky? The rules for jumping don't specify that your descent counts as falling, the only definition we have of falling is within a distance you would take damage (10ft and higher) which would be the minimum distance between you and the ground to be considered a falling creature.

Damn, nothing gets past you isnt it. I knew i should have look through the book for this one.

[ThePolarBear]

But you can target them, it just has no effect.

And does Contingency care? No. It is not about "A spell you can cast on yourself", so why bringing it up?


Therefore, you've conceded that revivify is a spell that "can target you"

Is the caster a spell? No?

Check this example, because it might make the position clear:

Law say a civilian can't enter military grounds without permission.
P is a civilian without said permission.
P can enter military grounds, since he is physically capable of doing so.
Is the Law one that says that P can enter military grounds? How do the guardsman there arrest P for trespassing? How do they know P is trespassing?

The spell needs to be one that can target. It is not a question of if the caster can or cannot!


If you want to add a houserule of "you can't knowingly cast a spell on an invalid target", that's your call?

No. It's WAY simpler than that. WAY WAY simpler.


But RAW is very very clear that you can do so.

And it is also very very clear that it is the spell the subject. Not "the caster".


You can do so. You can cast Revivify on a living target!

I don't care because it is not in question! And neither does Contingency because it only cares about the spell!


Beyond that, Contingency doesn't even say "a spell that can target you right now."

And it doesn't say "when the contingency triggers". It doesn't need "right now" since it is in the present, when the other is in the future and as such is only reasonable to expect that if that was the case it would have to be there. It isn't.


It merely says that it's a spell that can target you. Revivify is clearly a spell that can sometimes target me.

And when it doesn't, it is not a valid spell to be put into Contingency. It is not "a spell that could target you", "a spell that might target you", "a spell that can target you when the conditions set for Contingency come to pass". It is "a spell that can target you", and that has to be true wheter Contingency last one minute, until it triggers, or until Contingency dissipates because the duration comes to an end. And if Contingency ends and the trigger has not come to pass and the spell stored only has you as a valid target when the conditions do come to pass, that Contingency never had a spell that can target you as the contingent spell.

[BurgerBeast]

No, for the same reason that would bring you to not choose "Drive a car" when asked to "Choose which of these activities a 10 years old is allowed to do".

What does “is allowed to” have to do with anything? The word in the text is “can,” i.e. has the ability to.

This is the classic: Student: “Can I go to the washroom?” Teacher: “I don’t know. Can you?”


"Choose a spell of 5th level or lower that you can cast, that has a casting time of 1 action, and that can target you."

Not "that will be able to be cast on you when the conditions apply."

You are always “able to be” The target. You are a “valid” target only when the conditions apply.

Can is related to “able to,” not “is a valid target.”


Again, you would never say that a ten years old is allowed to drive a car, would you?

No, but I would say that a ten year old can drive a car. This is the conflation. “Can” is not the same as “is allowed.”

[Segev]

No, but I would say that a ten year old can drive a car. This is the conflation. “Can” is not the same as “is allowed.”

To be fair, they might actually have physical difficulty doing it, unless they're a particularly large 10 year old or it's a particularly small car. So "can" may actually apply.

Now, "Can an adult human drive without a driver's license?" Of course they can, but (in America, at least) they are not allowed to.

[Hail Tempus]

To be fair, they might actually have physical difficulty doing it, unless they're a particularly large 10 year old or it's a particularly small car. So "can" may actually apply.

Now, "Can an adult human drive without a driver's license?" Of course they can, but (in America, at least) they are not allowed to. [Puts on pedantic hat] Actually, there are a number of scenarios where it is perfectly legal for someone to drive a car without a driver's license. For example, no license is required to drive a car on your own property. There are also exceptions allowoing underage kids to drive vehicles short distances for agricultural purposes (such as letting them drive a tractor over a public street from one portion of a farm to another [removes pedantic hat]

[druid91]

Yes, it is an (intentionally) ridiculous example, but it uses exactly the same logic. It's reductio ad absurdum - following the logic through to its extremes and finding a result that is absurd.

Essentially, I'm trying to point out how the "could theoretically be cast on you at any point in the future if circumstances come out right" interpretation leads to bizarre results.



I didn't ask if you would, I asked if you could.



My argument is based entirely on one phrase - "a spell that can target you". A single phrase in the wording of the spell we're discussing. My argument is just "Revivify targets something that's dead, so if you're alive, it can't target you."

The "it's legal" side are talking about using rules in Xanathar's - an expansion that didn't exist when Contingency was printed - that was telling you how to resolve an edge case scenario revolving around things that are literally described as "invalid targets" to argue that anything can be a target of any spell, even if it doesn't come close to the spell's criteria.

Sorry to say it, but the way I see it, the people arguing you can do it are the ones relying on stretched interpretations and shaky logic.

You do realize that's a logical fallacy correct?

Not to mention there AREN'T spells like that so inventing one solely to break contingency is rather ridiculous.

It's legal because it makes sense. You're trying to legalese it into illegality on the very shaky argument that can only means 'Can right this instant.'


Death is a borderline certainty for an adventurer. Being reincarnated as an elf less so.

And this whole edition is by and large defined by it's rulings not rules design philosophy. So arguing that some disingenuous reading of the rules prevents a relatively mild use of contingency is rather silly.

[Aelyn]

You do realize that's a logical fallacy correct?
Reductio ad absurdum? Um, no it's not; it's a very common logical, mathematical, and philosophical tool which is used to argue against hypotheses which have absurd (in either the logical or natural-language sense) implications.

It's legal because it makes sense. You're trying to legalese it into illegality on the very shaky argument that can only means 'Can right this instant.'
As I see it, people are trying to argue "can" means "could in the future, under some theoretically possible circumstances, even if can't now". That feels a lot more of a stretch to me than assuming that the condition described while casting Contingency applies at the point you cast Contingency.

Also, when you say "it makes sense", do you mean in-universe or from the gamist perspective?

And this whole edition is by and large defined by it's rulings not rules design philosophy. So arguing that some disingenuous reading of the rules prevents a relatively mild use of contingency is rather silly.
And if someone wants to make the ruling that it's okay in their game, that's absolutely fine. I've said it's ultimately down to the DM since page 2. But the actual question here wasn't about HWYPI or whether it should be allowed, it was about what the rules are.

Contingency requires a spell that can target you. By definition, if you're not a valid target of a spell, you can't be the target of that spell.

Also FWIW I'm not being disingenuous; I genuinely don't understand why so many people seem to think it is unambiguously allowed by RAW.

[Mutazoia]

Contingency is an one slot ring of spell storing that auto-casts any spell loaded into it when a set condition is met. The contingent spell is not actually cast until said condition is met, which is why you need to have the material components on you when the contingent spell triggers or else the spell fails.

If it makes you happy, you can think of the contingent spell being 99% cast and then magically taken out of the space/time continuum and placed in limbo until the Contingency is triggered, at which time the spell is brought back into the character's space/time and completes.

[JackPhoenix]

Contingency is an one slot ring of spell storing that auto-casts any spell loaded into it when a set condition is met. The contingent spell is not actually cast until said condition is met, which is why you need to have the material components on you when the contingent spell triggers or else the spell fails.

If it makes you happy, you can think of the contingent spell being 99% cast and then magically taken out of the space/time continuum and placed in limbo until the Contingency is triggered, at which time the spell is brought back into the character's space/time and completes.

That's false. The contingent spell is cast when you cast Contingency, the *effect* is suspended until the triggering condition comes.

[PhantomSoul]

That's false. The contingent spell is cast when you cast Contingency, the *effect* is suspended until the triggering condition comes.

Additionally, the Material Component required is the one from Contingency, not the one from the Contingent Spell -- because the Contingent Spell was Cast when Contingency was Cast.

[ThePolarBear]

What does “is allowed to” have to do with anything?

Because one of the uses of "can" is permission. And as i wrote elsewhere (and yes, the post on page 1 is not the only one): yes, may is considered to be formally correct. Still doesn't meant that's not one of the possible uses of "can".


The word in the text is “can,” i.e. has the ability to.

Not the only meaning. But yes, i agree.


You are always “able to be” The target. You are a “valid” target only when the conditions apply.

"A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets"."A spell specifies what a caster can target with it".

Both quotes. "You" are not always what the spell can target, because "you" are not always specified.


Can is related to “able to,” not “is a valid target.”

The caster is able to. The spell isn't. This contradiction is what sparks the concept of "target validity".


No, but I would say that a ten year old can drive a car. This is the conflation. “Can” is not the same as “is allowed.”

"Can" has as one of the meanings that of "permission". So the example stands.
And if you give to "can" the value of ability, your reasoning on Contingency fails under the quotes i've given. It only stays up with "can" with meaning of "possibility", but "could" or "might" would serve that meaning better. And best would have been, were it to be the intention, to make it clear that that possibility has to manifest only when Contingency is triggered.

I don't know if you just chose to reply to the post on the first page out of a whim. But all i've written here is already in the thread.

[ezekielraiden]

Clearly everyone is wrong, as the correct definition of "can" is "to know," as in the origin of the modern word "cunning." This archaic term was used because it's about knowing the other spell; obviously if the spell isn't known to you, you don't know if you are a valid target for it.

Alternatively, and I cannot believe I of all people am saying this, we could chill a little, and be less pixel-bitchy on the semantic minutiae.

[BurgerBeast]

Because one of the uses of "can" is permission. And as i wrote elsewhere (and yes, the post on page 1 is not the only one): yes, may is considered to be formally correct. Still doesn't meant that's not one of the possible uses of "can".

Yes, but you’re asserting a position based on one definition. If you acknowledge that there are other possible definitions, then it’s wrong to assert that any one of them is correct. Thus, you’re wrong.

[edit: here I meant that it is wrong to assert that any one definition is exclusively correct (i.e. to the exclusion of the others)]


"A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets"."A spell specifies what a caster can target with it".

...

Both quotes. "You" are not always what the spell can target, because "you" are not always specified.

...

The caster is able to. The spell isn't. This contradiction is what sparks the concept of "target validity".

The spell cannot target anything. The caster targets things. If the target is valid, the spell takes effect. If the target is not valid... nothing is specified, unless you consult XGtE.


"Can" has as one of the meanings that of "permission". So the example stands.

Sorry. That’s not reasonable. You don’t get to make the leap from: “this is one possible meaning” to: “this is definitively what is meant.”

[Tanarii]

Clearly everyone is wrong, as the correct definition of "can" is "to know," as in the origin of the modern word "cunning." This archaic term was used because it's about knowing the other spell; obviously if the spell isn't known to you, you don't know if you are a valid target for it.I've always preferred the scottish: ya ken?

[eftexar]

Huh, haven't been on Giantitp for a while (years?) and this very argumentitive thread appears to be my article for the reintroduction. Lol. Greetings aside . . .


I honestly don't understand why a DM would rule against Contingent Revivify by RAW. Within the Player's Handbook, page 227 (or ~ page 208), Contigency uses the example of a Spell that can be used with it (that follows a similar structure as for Revivify) :

Contingency
Range : Self
Requires : a 5th level or lower Spell that you can Cast, has a Casting Time of 1 Action, and that can Target you.
Exact Text Blurb (with clarification in paranthesis) : " You cast that (Stored) Spell - called the Contingent Spell - as part of Casting (the Spell) Contingency. . . the Contingent Spell doesn't come into effect (yet) . . . "

The example used by the (Contingency) Spell is Water Breathing. You can stipulate it with (to paraphrase) : ' have an effect when you are next submerged in water '. It comes into effect once this circumstance is met (and can't be stopped from doing so).
If it has Material Components, these Components must be on your person. Here the text specifies that these Components (as detailed for the Contingency Spell and not the Contingent Spell) must be on your person from the time you cast the Contingency Spell, to create the Contingent Spell, until the time the Spell is triggered, or both Spells are lost entirely. It can only affect you (even if it could normally affect others).

Now, for the Contingent Spell - see page 287 (or ~ page 264) for - Water Breathing :

Water Breathing
Range : 30 ft.
It can Target you, despite the range of 30 ft. (as the PH indicates).
Exact Text Blurb (with clarification in paranthesis) : " This Spell grants up to ten willing Creatures you can see within Range . . . "

Now, lets compare it to another possible Contingent Spell - see page 272 (or ~ page 250) for - Revivify :

Revifify
Range : Touch
It can Target you, despite the range of Touch (as the PH indicates).
Exact Text Blurb (with clarification in paranthesis) : " You Touch a Creature that has died within the last Minute. (It) . . . returns to life . . . "

So, looking above (see my Condensed Comparison), the sticking point in the text can only be what appears to be a major difference / limitation : " You Touch a Creature that has died within . . . "

Without this specific phrase, RAW would (unequivocally) allow Contingent Revivify. But, this phrase is present and this is where it becomes confusing for people.

We can go two different avenues from here, though I think they lead to the same place :

Read as Written
As written, our only real point to deny Contingent Revivify is the phrase " You Touch a Creature that has died within the last Minute. "

More specifically where the point of contention is, is whether or not the Target has to qualify for . . . : both when the Contingency Spell is Cast AND when the Contingency is triggered. This depends on a few questions :


Is the (Contingent) Spell Cast at the same time as the Contingency (Spell) - or when Triggered ?
_
Is the (Contingent) Spell's Casting ' resolved ' at the same time as the Contingency (Spell) - or when Triggered ? . . . More specifically; is the Spell Stored in some sort of stasis OR has it been mostly Cast and is waiting for resolution?
_
Is the (Contingent) Spell's effect ' determined ' at the same time as the Contingency (Spell) - or when Triggered ?


Answering these questions isn't quite so cut and dry. Spell rules take into account the ' info blocks ' of various Spells and how they interact.
Does the Phrase " . . . that can Target you. " only apply to the ' info block ' or does it also apply to the description underneath? I'm inclined to think the former.
Even without the new rules for resolving illegal Targets, I've noticed that where 3.5e indicated the kinds of Targets in the info block and read ' see text, ' or something similar when it could fit in the ' info block, ' 5e is more sparse in that regard.

D&D is a top-down system. That is, it sets a framework and then describes it more detail on several levels. In 3.5e it was explicitly stated that the more specific rule, unless it was given as Errata (unless it was new Errata in itself), was to be followed.
This too can be argued either way. Does the ' info block ' OR the description count as being more specific than the other? Personally, I think the ' info block ' is more important here because of 5e's tendency for purple prose (at least when compared to 3.5e). There it states explicit rules and has no more wording than is needed, which is not true of the description beneath it sometimes.

And, finally, we have to keep in mind the definition of 'can' and 'may.' While many argue this is either just pedantics or that they can have multiple meanings, keep in mind as a company, and a very big and successful one at that, WotC needs to reach the largest audience and communicate to them in a way that more understand than not.
This is part of what is known as aCcESSAbILIty. * Cue Dramatics and Vincent Price voiceover, wha, ha ha . . . * i.e. The metaphorical Deity of public scrutiny and Patron God of the Disabled and, sadly, the large swaths of public lacking common sense and / or education. * End Dramatics *
What this means, is that they have to go with the 'official' definition of words, rather than the 'popular' definition of words. In this case, ' Can ' usually refers to possibility and ' May ' usually refers to permission. And make no mistake, they have legions of PR support and lawyers, not to mention people specifically for this purpose.

Combined with the rules of specificity, and the pedantry of ' can ' or ' may, ' this suggests, since there is suffucient lack of clarity there, Contingent Revivify is possible. How so?;

Well, simply put, to prove it impossible by RAW, you have to refer to multiple texts, arguable definitions, and interpretation. This is complex. Some of the goals of 5e, were to capture what made 3.5e so great, but keep the simplicity and ease of play of 4e.
That said, to put it another way, the rules need to be simple enough that the average person, without experience in pen and paper games, could pick up D&D with a little tutoring at the start, and intermittent advice, from their more game-wise compatriots at the table.
With all honesty, tell me what you think the average player would see when they looked at the combination of spells involved? And don't even factor in your logic here; the average new player, especially if they are more interested in the social aspects than gaming aspects of playing, likely doesn't care. What will they see, and believe, when they skim over the Spells? I think they are going to expect Contingent Revivify would work and would get frustrated and quit if the DM seems to be, even if they are not, arbitrarily not allow their Characters to do things they believed them able to do. They want to have fun, not compete.

And if you can't agree RAW, then RAI does have a role here . . . :

Read as Intended
In this case RAW and RAI may very well run roughshod over one another. What I mean is; how much should RAI affect RAW? For the purpose of this subsection of argument (and only this subsection), we will assume RAW doesn't allow Contingent Revivify :

In 3.5e, RAW oft meant little as DMs would make decisions on the fly, sometimes choosing different option for different games and Players. In 3.5e, the designers tried to craft a game with explicit rules, Explicit with a capital E, and it broke the game in some places without DM arbitration to fix it. This led to many RAI > RAW rulings and much, and repeated, Errata (often influenced by what GMs and Players thought was RAI). Or the DM just flat out made their own judgement call.

Because of this, 5e was designed specifically to play by the rules 'loosely.' If you look at the text, even in the more explicit rules, 5e tends to keep wording much more vague than 3.5e ever did. And, correct if I'm wrong, but I believe several points in the 5e books state the rules are meant to be guidelines. Somethign 3e and 3.5e didn't do during their earliest runs.

Hence, it could be argued, and perhaps should be argued, that RAI rules where RAW is disputed. If we look at the text of other Spells that fit Contingent, they all tend to have descriptive text. That is : the text is more descriptive, than the text is exact. To prove my point, lets compare the 3.5e version of Revivify (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contingency.htm) to the 5e version of Revivify (http://5e.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contingency.htm).

3.5e is more verbose than the 5e version. Even looking at the info block directly under the name of the Spell. 3.5e has more and is more explicit.

Looking here, 3.5e says " the Contingency Spell and the Companion Spell are cast at the same time " in description to the Casting, but later indicates " the latter (Spell) being Cast instantaneously when the prescribed circumstances occur. "

5e on the other hand, tends to use terms in the descriptive text interchangeable from Spell to spell. That is, to ' Cast ' and to ' take effect ' sometimes appear to mean the same thing and sometimes they don't.

So, I think we've established that 5e isn't very exacting with it's own text. So we have to par it down to RAI or it becomes a DM arbitration that Players might get huffy about it.

To make a fairly Objective determination, we must look at past patterns. That is, look at how the designers dealt with similar things in the past. The 3.5e version seems to indicate that it works with Contingency (even as written in 5e).

Also, as established before, the text in 5e is descriptive under Spells (as well as the Features of Classes) and so much of the wording is a combination of ' fluff ' and 5e's looser rule adjucation.

Further, we can take into account Spells changed in transition from 3.5e to 5e (which is a near certainty given the large number of similarities). They tend to have shorter, ' simpler, ' descriptions but otherwise few changes. i.e. those that weren't problem Spells or changed to work with the Reaction mechanics of 5e, remained much the same. Here we have precedent.

So RAI, the designers probably either intended to allow Revivify to work with Contingency, or, given the larger number of Spells, it may not have occured to them at all. The latter is more likely.

Still, we have a few facts in support of allowing Contingent Revivify :


5e is rules light and expects more adjucation by Players and DMs, allowing flexibility but sometimes causing problems when rules aren't clear or are absent
_
5e text is more descriptive than prescriptive (the opposite of 3.5e), it lacks the explicity 3.5e tends to have
_
Precedent indicates it would work in 3.5e which 5e heavily cribbed from, so it stands to reason if it worked there, whey not here ?

Conclusion? It seems counter-intuitive at this point to dissallow. Only the DM judgement remains, and the resource investment and limitations aren't so unbalanced as to need a ban in my opinion.


Section Edited between doubled-up Horizontal Rules (will add further edits here until next post, to prevent repeat posting)
Ugh, hopefully my grammer didn't get too messed up. Kept getting logged out because of the length of post and the back and forth with reference books. And, does Giantitp have autocorrect now? Because I swear a lot of my time was spent recorrected my 'corrected words.' That or my browser changed settings again with it's last big update. On a brief off note, why do software updates mess with settings on so many devices now? I don't remember that happening so often with older software or with older hardware?

So, yeah . . .
.
It seems to me that there isn't really any reason to not allow Revivify as a Contingent Spell. The only thing against it is a single phrase, that may very well just be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and, as seen in this thread, is controversial in application anyway. Generally speaking, when it doubt, simplify. Many simple won't see the limitation some of you do. And, Players expect their Characters to be capable of doing certain things and get upset when they can't.

At this point, it likely isn't just them 'gaming' the system. It's about Expectation vs Reality. At that point, well, ruling they can't do something, because they understood the text in a different way than you did (DM or not), just ruins the fun for them on a visceral level (mostly since it makes it seem like you have something personal against them). Sure, you can point out how you understood it. And better yet, if you want a Player to feel less 'under attack,' allow them to do it once, but explain the rule to them. And if they genuinely still don't see what you see and don't agree, if it doesn't break the game, why not allow it?

If you must, think about it this way (if not seriously, then for a bit of fun). In game terms that is. There are DMs of different alignment :
LONG ARM OF THE LAW
Lawful Good. Wants Players to follow the Rules, because he genuinely believes without them the Players won't have fun or will devolve into a giggling drunken mob. If this alienates a player or two, well, the Greater Good for the majority is more important. Besides, it's not like they were forced to be here, right? Doesn't realize that he always enforces his interpertation of the Rules and ignores ALL of his Player's concerns. Besides, he's always right!, right . . .
Lawful Neutral. Cares only for the Rules. Consequences, good or bad, mean little, so long as the rules are followed he is happy. Why?, because he's almost always followed the Rules, and the few times he didn't, it ended badly for him (sometimes very badly). No accusation, true or just to be mean, will rile him up (though he might get his revenge bicariously through the Player's Character (without breaking the rules himself)). He tends to over-equate the real world and the game a bit too much. And if he's the host, well, suck it up. At least he wont interfere with others who DM at his house. Though expect the occasional lecture . . .
Lawful Evil. Enjoys using the Rules to crush his Player's Characters. Always places gameplay on the harder end of 'fair.' Will sometimes let them break a Rule if it means hoisting them with their own petard, but won't ever initiate the rulebreaking, in of itself, himself. Sometimes he blames their misery for breaking the Rule he let them break. Instead of planning devious traps as obstacles, he designs them so Players can't beat them and then laughs at the myriad of ways they die. Ha, ha, Trapception! He may laugh in secret if his 'friends' don't know his true nature. Or they do and he just has a nice place or lots of money. That or their mom is a great cook, like, how doesn't she run a restaurant of her own? . . .

DON'T KNOW, DON'T CARE
Neutral Good. This DM got roped into this gig. His friends guilt tripped him into it. When his Players break the rules, or a fight breaks out at the table, he lets them walk all over him. Oh, are those pretzels on the table over there? You wanted some too? I'll wait. No, I'm fine, have to go the bathroom anyway. No, no, I didn't just go. That was uh, . . . Really . . .
Neutral. This DM got roped into this gig too. When his Player's break the rules, or a fight breaks out at the table, he leaves the room to get a snack. That is what this is all about right. That, and hanging out with friends. Probably. At least he's not alone anymore . . . * sighs *
Neutral Evil. Just wants to hang out with his nerdy, but hot, girlfriend (or vice versa in roles). Finds everyone at the table amusing, and secretely judges them, but won't ever say anything, even when she's not there, because, well, she's hot. Like, really hot. Especially with the glasses she never wears. Maybe she could 'lose' her contacts. And sometimes, when she leans over to Roll some Dice, . . . * drools *. Very hot. And she plays Call of Duty, so . . . If he actually has fun, he won't admit it to himself. That, and he tells his homeboys she's the only reason he's there (even if they've since broken up). Worst case scenario, he invites his even 'jock'-ier friends over for the game and they actually come! The horror! Is 'jock-ier' a word? Hmm . . .

FREEDOM FIGHTERS
Chaotic Good. Genuinely wants the Player's to have fun and adjusts his approach to do so. Very Creative, but sometimes forgets to plan things out. Snacks are plentiful and booze are in moderation. Campaigns tend to sometimes get derailed by metagaming though. Or player's telling crude jokes. Still, out of all the DMs, their Players tend to have the most fun. Unfortunately the group isn't very cohesive and might not stick together. Then you have to find another group. And it won't ever be anywhere near as fun . . .
Chaotic Neutral. Doesn't know why he's here. Did he take his 'medication'? Yep, booze is right there. All is right with the world. Mmh, was he supposed to Roll something? Ugh, his brother is such a nerd, but family is family after all. If this makes him happy? Fine, his brother will just have to go to the stadium, for the Football game, with him. Ha, ha, Roll for Initiative dudes and dude-ettes . . .
Chaotic Evil. Not actually a DM, but the DMs cat. It likes to roll on the matt and eat the miniatures (or at least try to). If it lets you pet it, and doesn't yowl, then it's Chaotic Neutral, not Chaotic Evil. Hmm, why is it bald? The DM's bald isn't he? Maybe the DM Polymorphed himself? Yeah totally plausible. Wait, why is everthing blurry? The brownies! Oh man, the cops! Run for it! Ack!, Pothole! . . . * crash * . . . Next week on COPS! The officer's of law enforcement . . .


Which kind of DM do you want to be?


Quick Look Index
Contingency 227 (or 208)
Water Breathing 287 (or 264)
Revivify 272 (or 250)

[ezekielraiden]

It's also worth noting that the only characters who could even potentially cast this are Bards that spend two of their Magical Secrets picks on it (as neither spell is on the Bard list), or an Arcana Cleric. There are no other characters that, by RAW, can cast both spells anyway. So, we're already talking about either a character who has specifically invested in these specific spells, or a character literally about manipulating arcane magic as well as divine magic.

So. Given that very, very few characters can cast this particular combination of spells, is it still a problem? I feel like shutting down, let alone freaking out over, a trick that only a very high-level Bard (14th level) or one specific type of Cleric (Arcana, 11th level) can pull off is...well. Something of a waste of one's time when other, more relevant balance issues exist.

[ThePolarBear]

Yes, but you’re asserting a position based on one definition.

No i'm not. Two of those "definitions" are present in the post you are quoting. Both "permission" and "ability" are completely interchangeable here. The one that has a bit of credit is "possibility". Which long before you even posted i stated it being the one with most ground, but there are reasons as of why i believe it would have been worded in another way were it to be the intended meaning and why it doesn't hold that much as it is now.
This is not the only post i wrote.

And yes, the example focuses on one meaning It is not there to support the meaning "allowed" it is there to support the fact that "possibility" is not the reading that one would istinctively confer to it - just like you gave it the value "Allowed to" - and to provide a tangible example on how the timing of the answer is "naturally" read. One of the reasons why "possibility" really doesn't convinces me. Read below.


If you acknowledge that there are other possible definitions, then it’s wrong to assert that any one of them is correct. Thus, you’re wrong.
[edit: here I meant that it is wrong to assert that any one definition is exclusively correct (i.e. to the exclusion of the others)]

All three are correct - the word can mean all three. Applying different meanings of the word "can" will change the result. Those results will range in reasonabilty and rationality.
There is a difference however in what a person would "naturally" read in the situation vs what a person can "artificially" read in it. Many jokes hinge on this difference between "expected" meaning and "possible/lateral" meaning. (edit: your example of the teacher. The teacher DID understand the kid. The teacher is there to teach "formal" English, after all.)

What i tried to point out MANY MANY times is that if your argument is that "it needs to be a valid target when the condition is met" then the value that is applied to "can" changes. The argument "needs" what is written "can" as "could". The more natural reading of "must" - permission - or "does" - ability" gets perceived and then overjustified in an attempt of reaching a specific result. The very argument relies on the realization that the "now" would not be a valid time, that the "target cannot".
That's why the example of the kid is made with "allowed", permission, which is a meaning of "can". To cut off this switcheroo. To highlight the change that happens.

Yes, the kid "can" drive, possibly. It might have the ability to. And nothing prevents him from attempting it other than an assumed "law" - the permission, assuming there is a vehicle he could drive nearby - the possibilty.

But what is reasonable here? That an unmentioned vehicle is there? That i really meant "able to" instead of "allowed", were to ask with "can"? Or that in general i meant "allowed"? That the meaning of the word is heavily contextual?

Why not go with the meaning that is reached when there's the attempt to justify that "it only needs when the condition apply"? Because you know that right now "can't"?


The spell cannot target anything.

False assumption. "A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)."

We know that spells DO target something. They are able to. The rules allow them to. Is it possible for them to. They can.


The caster targets things.

The caster MIGHT make a choice, it is not required at all times for the caster to make such a choice. "A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets
to be affected by the spell's magic." It follows that an atypical spell might not require you to make such a choice. Practical example: Alter Self. You do not have a choice: it's only "you" that is going to be a target because the spell says so. The caster has zero choice on the matter.


If the target is valid, the spell takes effect. If the target is not valid... nothing is specified, unless you consult XGtE.

The concept of target validity has been a result of the rules fro XGTE. And you know a target is valid or not due to a spell having the possibility/ability/permission to target only certain types of "things" while the caster has not this kind of limitation.


Sorry. That’s not reasonable. You don’t get to make the leap from: “this is one possible meaning” to: “this is definitively what is meant.”

I made the example. Please tell me how something i came up with intended something different.


I honestly don't understand why a DM would rule against Contingent Revivify by RAW.

I'll spoil the attempt. Too much text otherwise.


The example used by the (Contingency) Spell is Water Breathing. You can stipulate it with (to paraphrase)

Before you stipulate anything, you need to meet what you call the requirements. I hope you agree that those being requirements those have to be checked first and foremost. Exactly as is the possibility to cast the spell is required for a spell to be chosen has to be cheched first the actual casting of the spell, we need to check if Water Breathing is a spell that can target you.

We are already past that point if we are stipulating. I don't contest that you could stipulate conditions in which spell X would be able to target "you". The problem is that the "requirement" as you call it is not really a requirement if it isn't necessary for the spell Contingency to take place. And if we don't meet the requirement other than when the spell is already cast and well undergoing, than the requirement is not simply a "spell that can target you" but "a spell that will target you following x condition" which i hope you agree is not what is written (as in, verbatim. Meaning aside) there.

Everything is secondary to the "requirements": if the spell effect is stored for later use, if Contingency will trigger or not, if we meet the requirements of having the components on... All relies on the spell being one that can target you. The problem lies in the "requirements" for Contingency being met or not.

It relies in applying the rules for targeting to Contingency as we do for any other spell.


If it has Material Components, these Components must be on your person.

That's about the material component for Contingency, not the other spell. "its" refers to the last spell named, Contingency, as per English rules of pronoun use.



Water Breathing
Range : 30 ft.
It can Target you, despite the range of 30 ft. (as the PH indicates).

Revifify
Range : Touch
It can Target you, despite the range of Touch (as the PH indicates).


"RANGE
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range."

You MIGHT be a valid target for both spells. However this is not sufficient. Because Range =/= Targets and what can be targeted or not is not only dependant on range alone. If we are to consider range, we should also consider sight and cover, for example. But my argument doesn't really care more than the necessary even if there are ramifications on the conclusion.
What does Targets say?

"TARGETS
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)."

The description of the spell is what tells you, the player, what the spell targets. And it seems that you agree.


Without this specific phrase, RAW would (unequivocally) allow Contingent Revivify.

Let's say yes. As a general discussion (without going into particular specific situations and not even caring about them).


Read as Written
As written, our only real point to deny Contingent Revivify is the phrase "You Touch a Creature that has died within the last Minute."

I get were you are going. It is not as simple, but let's.


More specifically where the point of contention is, is whether or not the Target has to qualify for . . . : both when the Contingency Spell is Cast AND when the Contingency is triggered.

There is a gap in logic here, in my opinion. It is a necessary step but it is not the starting one. Before anything we need to know why and if we should care about the target qualifying. Essentially we care because otherwise Contingency would not have a spell chosen that meets the requirement. It would not have a "valid target" in and of itself. We choose Revivify as the target for Contingency, and since we need it to be a valid one, we need to know if it meets the requirements to be.


This depends on a few questions :

None of this questions really matter. I only care about "Can the spell target you" and what that means at this point.

We never reach the point were you can cast the spell as part of Contingency if the spell chosen can't target you. It is not a valid "target" for Contingency, so Contingency and all of its exceptions have no effect on that invalid spell. We can't cast it as part of Contingency. Even if we can, Contingency will have no effect on it - it will not be stored.
Worst case: we never resolve the spell. We can't cast it. Best case: we solve it immediately.
Worst case: The effect of the spell is not determined. We can't cast it. Best Case: we determine the effect immediately after casting. Contingency doesn't affect that spell.



Answering these questions isn't quite so cut and dry. Spell rules take into account the ' info blocks ' of various Spells and how they interact.
Does the Phrase " . . . that can Target you. " only apply to the ' info block ' or does it also apply to the description underneath? I'm inclined to think the former.

Spell targets are defined in the description. The description is necessary to define what a spell can target. And that's PHB.


This too can be argued either way.

Only if we already have assumed that the chosen spell IS a spell that can target you. If it isn't, we don't even reach this "deep" into the logic. We have a cut and dry confirmation and we also know that "Specific beats general" anyway.

Reaching this point already grants Revivify the "can" as meaning of "potential". It doesn't address the problem.


And, finally, we have to keep in mind the definition of 'can' and 'may.' While many argue this is either just pedantics or that they can have multiple meanings, keep in mind as a company, and a very big and successful one at that, WotC needs to reach the largest audience and communicate to them in a way that more understand than not.

"Finally"? Sorry but analyzing backwards and not addressing the point of contention really doesn't help.
5e has been written with "natural language", not formal one. One of the issues (and one of the great strenght of the edition) is exactly that.

Is X a spell that can target you or not? Why?


Combined with the rules of specificity, and the pedantry of ' can ' or ' may, ' this suggests, since there is suffucient lack of clarity there, Contingent Revivify is possible. How so?;

This is an arbitrary decision. You choose "yes". You believe it to be, based on your choice. This has nothing to do with RAW anymore.


Well, simply put, to prove it impossible by RAW, you have to refer to multiple texts

It's three lines all that's necessary. Two of which are in the phb. Citing texts is basic of argumenting and citing sources shouldn't be held against those who put forward the argument. Expecially in a RAW argument that is based on text and where the text is the source and the important part.


arguable definitions

Everything is arguable, not every argument holds the same weight. And providing different approaches to the same problem can help narrow what, given assumed starting positions, is the most reasonable result.


and interpretation. This is complex.

It is just as complex as answering the question "can the spell target you". Be it argueing for "yes" or "no" the sources are the same.
The wildcard is that "the DM chooses" is always at top. And that's beside question because renders every discussion meaningless if the result is simply having an answer.


That said, to put it another way, the rules need to be simple enough that the average person, without experience in pen and paper games, could pick up D&D with a little tutoring at the start, and intermittent advice, from their more game-wise compatriots at the table.

"You can't because you need to appear in the list of what a spell can target" is incredibly simple. As simple as "you can".
It gets verbose when you need to repeat times and times again that it isn't "you" the subject, so it doesn't matter if you can cast it or not. That spells can and have targets. That the ability of a player or character to chose is an option that not all spells have, and those spell still are spells and still have targets. It's not "you can target", it's not contextualized to a situation other than it being a valid option for you to choose for Contingency. So, it needs to be able, to have permission, to have the possibilty of targeting you. Two out of three end in the same result. The third leads to the nullification of the requirement. What is reasonable?


With all honesty, tell me what you think the average player would see when they looked at the combination of spells involved?

That when pointed out "is your character dead or not" it would think twice about what "spell that can target you" means and when it is necessary for it to be active. That's why the dominant argument here is "Well it just needs to be able to target "you" when the condition happens!". Because there is a need to justify why it would be "a spell that can target you" at some time, since it isn't "a spell that can target you" in the now as far as common understanding goes.

At the question "can it target you?" when casting the spell you have an answer. Apply the same answer here when you reach that line, and you have an extremely simple answer, too. Even if the result might be different from what you aspire it .


And don't even factor in your logic here; the average new player, especially if they are more interested in the social aspects than gaming aspects of playing, likely doesn't care.

That's an entirely different discussion. That's why there is a DM: to mediate and act as a filter between rules and players. That's it. That's beside the discussion and it is a granted for me. that's a RAI perspective. And an intent of the game as a whole.



Read as Intended
In this case RAW and RAI may very well run roughshod over one another. What I mean is; how much should RAI affect RAW?

Zero/all. RAI is an intent, RAW what is written. You get to play as you want and if you want you can ignore both.

The three things can cohexist and RAW doesn't need to be univocal, but RAI should be expressed as RAW in the most univocal way possible (because RAW is what we have access to for the most part) and RAI can help understand where in RAW that RAI is. To see things with a different pair of eyes, from a different perspective.
This different perspective however doesn't make an argument "correct" in any way shape or form in and of itself (see: War Caster. Intent is for it to be able to work at the same timing of an Attack of Opportunity. Text says you do something else "instead", so why should you gain boni that are specific of an Attack of Opportunity?). Well, except the usual "ask your DM", which doesn't help when someone wants to know more about what are the thought processes that people use to reach certain conclusions.
A RAW discussion focuses on the text. It can revel in undesireable and unintended consequences. It can help a DM get a different perspective.
A RAI discussion focuses on elements of the game that aren't as black and white printed, but the spirit behind them. Be it supposed balance, comparisons between similar pieces of texts and the attempt to understand the intentions of the designers to approach the what is the intended vision for the product.
A RAF or a "i do this as a DM" discussion is to get advice and experience from fellow DMs that are not necessarily bound to any of the above be it because of "special" circumstances of the group or simply because the intent of the game is not one that closely abides to the intent of the rules both as written and as intended (for example, a more economically focused game that is not really supported nor intended in the rules as we have). It is for practical approach.

All of this perspective have their uses. And do mingle and are best when considered all together.


So RAI, the designers probably either intended to allow Revivify to work with Contingency, or, given the larger number of Spells, it may not have occured to them at all. The latter is more likely.

I agree. It doesn't mean that RAW there's no answer, even if that answer is just "undefined".


Still, we have a few facts in support of allowing Contingent Revivify :


5e is rules light and expects more adjucation by Players and DMs, allowing flexibility but sometimes causing problems when rules aren't clear or are absent
_
5e text is more descriptive than prescriptive (the opposite of 3.5e), it lacks the explicity 3.5e tends to have
_
Precedent indicates it would work in 3.5e which 5e heavily cribbed from, so it stands to reason if it worked there, whey not here ?



In order: same argument works for "no", same argument works for "no", 3e is not 5e. Featherfall doesn't work here at all, and yet it worked in 3e. That isn't RAI, btw, that's RAF - and fun is subjective.


Conclusion? It seems counter-intuitive at this point to dissallow.

Sorry. I believe i've provided enough counter arguments to provide my perspective on what there is of "text-based-evidence" (so to say) has to give us.
The rest works either way but for reasons that are not part of the discussion as far as i'm concerned.

It has been an interesting read.

[CorporateSlave]

The concept of target validity has been a result of the rules fro XGTE. And you know a target is valid or not due to a spell having the possibility/ability/permission to target only certain types of "things" while the caster has not this kind of limitation.


RAW this is the bit I can't get past though. In light of the XGTE Invalid Target rule, I don't see how one can justify that Revivify cannot Target "you" (the caster).

I get that careful parsing the the english language and separating what the spell targets vs what the caster targets with the spell can be considered two different things, but I only buy that they are differentiated in resolving the effect (i.e. determining if the Target is a Valid or Invalid Target, and therefore if the spell has any effect).

After all, the Invalid Target rule states "But what happens if a spell targets something that isn’t a valid target?" It doesn't say "what happens if the caster targets something with the spell that isn't a valid target for the spell." So even though the caster is the one making the choice as to what he is targeting with the spell, the XGTE Invalid Targets rule still states the spell itself is what is Targeting the potential Invalid Target.

Furthermore, the XGTE text reads "If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target" It doesn't say "If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be Targeted by the spell..." Per the Invalid Target rule, the caster and/or the spell are considered to be able to Target anything...but if the Target is an Invalid Target per the spell's description, the Target can't be affected by the spell.

Basically, I disagree with this bit: "And you know a target is valid or not due to a spell having the possibility/ability/permission to target only certain types of "things" while the caster has not this kind of limitation." What I read in the XGTE Invalid Targets rule is that while a spell can Target anything, if will not be able to affect anything that is not a Valid Target.

Perhaps to put it the most simply - Post XGTE, a spell can Target anything. It can only affect something that is a Valid Target per that specific spell.

So if a spell can Target an Invalid Target, then Revivify can Target a living creature at the time of its casting (even if it could not affect that Target, as it is an Invalid Target at the time of casting), and therefore can be used with Contingency.

Now, if you're not playing with XGTE (say, one of those PHB+1 campaigns), then I'd say the RAW would not support use of Revivify with Contingency, because the PHB Spellcasting rules read as if spells can only Target what is specifically listed.

[Mutazoia]

Now, if you're not playing with XGTE (say, one of those PHB+1 campaigns), then I'd say the RAW would not support use of Revivify with Contingency, because the PHB Spellcasting rules read as if spells can only Target what is specifically listed.

But if we interpret things THAT way, then Contingency becomes a totally useless spell, as you would not be able to use it with anything at all. At least not anything that you couldn't cast yourself as needed.

The Contingency spell is all about having spells auto-cast in an emergency. All of the spells you could use with it, with few exceptions, cannot actually be targeted at you without some very specific conditions being met (which would not be met at the time of setting up the Contingency spell).

[Aelyn]

But if we interpret things THAT way, then Contingency becomes a totally useless spell, as you would not be able to use it with anything at all. At least not anything that you couldn't cast yourself as needed.

The Contingency spell is all about having spells auto-cast in an emergency. All of the spells you could use with it, with few exceptions, cannot actually be targeted at you without some very specific conditions being met (which would not be met at the time of setting up the Contingency spell).
You mean spells like Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, Cure Wounds, or Dimension Door? (Four spells I've seen mentioned as other possible Contingent spells.) None of those specify a status for the target, unlike Revivify.

You touch a creature that has died within the last minute. That creature returns to life with 1 hit point. This spell can’t return to life a creature that has died of old age, nor can it restore any missing body parts.

Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a successful check, the spell ends.

At your touch, all curses affecting one creature or object end. If the object is a cursed magic item, its curse remains, but the spell breaks its owner's attunement to the object so it can be removed or discarded.

A creature you touch regains a number of hit points equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.

You teleport yourself from your current location to any other spot within range. You arrive at exactly the spot desired. It can be a place you can see, one you can visualize, or one you can describe by stating distance and direction, such as "200 feet straight downward" or "upward to the northwest at a 45- degree angle, 300 feet."
See the difference?

[Yunru]

So, to work from the bottom up:
You can't cast Contingency Dimension Door if something is stopping you teleporting at the time of casting?
You can't cast Contingency Cure Wounds unless you are touching yourself? (Oh my!)
Ditto Remove Cure.

Does any of that sound reasonable?

[sithlordnergal]

So, let me ask a question to those who are saying Revivify can't be a Contingency spell. Can you cast Revivify into a Ring of Spell Storing? The Ring of Spell Storing states:

"Any creature can Cast a Spell of 1st through 5th level into the ring by touching the ring as the spell is cast. The spell has no effect, other than to be stored in the ring."


Contingency states:

"You cast that spell, called the contingent spell, as part of casting contingency, expending Spell Slots for both, but the contingent spell doesn't come into effect."

The Ring isn't a creature that is dead, and Revivify states that you have to touch a dead creature in order to cast it.

[RifleAvenger]

5e is full of vaguely written wordings meant to allow GM's leverage in determining what players can/cannot do, how something actually works, or letting them set the power level of historically problematic spells/abilities (like contingency).

Any reasonable GM would allow "if I die, I cease to be dead" as a contingency via Revivify in my opinion. Especially given how hard is actually is to get that combination of spells this edition, excluding Unearthed Arcana subclasses.

[Mutazoia]

You mean spells like Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, Cure Wounds, or Dimension Door? (Four spells I've seen mentioned as other possible Contingent spells.) None of those specify a status for the target, unlike Revivify.

{snip}



See the difference?

Okayy.... can you cast "cure wounds" on a target (yourself included), if you have not taken damage/are at full HP?

By your logic, no. Therefore Contingency "Cure wounds" wouldn't work either.

As someone already pointed out, "Feather Fall" was listed as an example of a Contingent Spell, but you can't cast it unless you are falling.

[Aelyn]

So, to work from the bottom up:
You can't cast Contingency Dimension Door if something is stopping you teleporting at the time of casting?
You can't cast Contingency Cure Wounds unless you are touching yourself? (Oh my!)
Ditto Remove Cure.

Does any of that sound reasonable?
See, the issue here is that you're getting the "spell that can target you" clause confused with the effect of the Contingent spell.

Both Dimension Door and Cure Wounds can target you at the time you cast Contingency, even if they don't do anything. Revivify can't. It's as simple as that.

Okayy.... can you cast "cure wounds" on a target (yourself included), if you have not taken damage/are at full HP?

By your logic, no. Therefore Contingency "Cure wounds" wouldn't work either.
Actually, yes, you can. Cure Wounds doesn't say that the target needs to be something that's not on full HP, so that's perfectly legal.


As someone already pointed out, "Feather Fall" was listed as an example of a Contingent Spell, but you can't cast it unless you are falling.
Given that Feather Fall has other reasons that it doesn't work - namely, that it's a Reaction rather than an Action - I'd be interested in seeing where in the rules it suggests using Feather Fall as a Contingent spell.

[Yunru]

Both Dimension Door and Cure Wounds can target you at the time you cast Contingency, even if they don't do anything. Revivify can't. It's as simple as that.

By the example given in XGTE, we know that it can in fact target you, even if you haven't recently died.

[Aelyn]

By the example given in XGTE, we know that it can in fact target you, even if you haven't recently died.
I'm well aware that your position is that the "can target you" text is completely meaningless and that you can freely Contingency Knock, Fireball, or Create or Destroy Water if you like, as you can target anything with any spell even if it's not a valid target.

My position is that if something is an invalid target, it can't be targeted, and that XGtE is telling you what to do if a player or NPC tries to target something that can't be targeted by the spell. It's not an excuse to ignore the concept of something that can be targeted entirely.

If you're having to use loopholes like "XGtE says you can target something that isn't a valid target, so anything which targets anything can be a Contingent spell", I really don't see the point in trying to debate this very further. You and I clearly have a very different idea of what "a spell that can target you" means if your idea includes "a spell for which you are not a valid target".

I prefer to work from the basis that the text of the spell is meaningful.

[AHF]

It's also worth noting that the only characters who could even potentially cast this are Bards that spend two of their Magical Secrets picks on it (as neither spell is on the Bard list), or an Arcana Cleric. There are no other characters that, by RAW, can cast both spells anyway. So, we're already talking about either a character who has specifically invested in these specific spells, or a character literally about manipulating arcane magic as well as divine magic.

So. Given that very, very few characters can cast this particular combination of spells, is it still a problem? I feel like shutting down, let alone freaking out over, a trick that only a very high-level Bard (14th level) or one specific type of Cleric (Arcana, 11th level) can pull off is...well. Something of a waste of one's time when other, more relevant balance issues exist.

Or a multi-class character with viable combinations of two or more of Wizard, Bard, Celestial Warlock, Divine Soul Sorcerer, Cleric, etc.

[sithlordnergal]

I'm well aware that your position is that the "can target you" text is completely meaningless and that you can freely Contingency Knock, Fireball, or Create or Destroy Water if you like, as you can target anything with any spell even if it's not a valid target.

My position is that if something is an invalid target, it can't be targeted, and that XGtE is telling you what to do if a player or NPC tries to target something that can't be targeted by the spell. It's not an excuse to ignore the concept of something that can be targeted entirely.

If you're having to use loopholes like "XGtE says you can target something that isn't a valid target, so anything which targets anything can be a Contingent spell", I really don't see the point in trying to debate this very further. You and I clearly have a very different idea of what "a spell that can target you" means if your idea includes "a spell for which you are not a valid target".

I prefer to work from the basis that the text of the spell is meaningful.

If you prefer to work from the basis that the text of a spell is meaningful, then do so. You're so focused on the "Touch a creature that is dead" part that you are ignoring the "The spell does not take effect" part of Contingency. If a spell doesn't take effect, then none of the effects, including restrictions at that moment in time, occur. Contingency is a lot like the Ring of Spell Storing. Would you allow Revivfy to be cast into a Ring of Spell Storing? Cause the Ring stores spells cast into it, like Contingency, but the ring is not a creature that has died recently. And is technically an invalid target.

Can Revivfy effect you? Well, its a Touch spell so you can target yourself with it, unless you wanna say that you can't target yourself with a Touch spell. After that the effects of the Spell are suspended. You could cast Raise Dead as your Contingency spell if you like.

That said, you wouldn't be able to cast things like Fireball because it is an AoE and you target a point, not a creature.

[Aelyn]

If you prefer to work from the basis that the text of a spell is meaningful, then do so. You're so focused on the "Touch a creature that is dead" part that you are ignoring the "The spell does not take effect" part of Contingency. If a spell doesn't take effect, then none of the effects, including restrictions at that moment in time, occur. Contingency is a lot like the Ring of Spell Storing. Would you allow Revivfy to be cast into a Ring of Spell Storing? Cause the Ring stores spells cast into it, like Contingency, but the ring is not a creature that has died recently. And is technically an invalid target.
This would be a valid point if Contingency didn't explicitly state that the Contingent spell has to be one that can target you, while the Ring of Spell Storing doesn't.

If Contingency didn't say "a spell... that can target you", or if Revivify said "Choose a creature. If it died within the last minute...", it would work fine.

Can Revivfy effect you? Well, its a Touch spell so you can target yourself with it, unless you wanna say that you can't target yourself with a Touch spell. After that the effects of the Spell are suspended. You could cast Raise Dead as your Contingency spell if you like.
Did you die within the last minute? No? Then Revivify can't target you.

That said, you wouldn't be able to cast things like Fireball because it is an AoE and you target a point, not a creature.
But I thought spells that target can target anything, no matter whether or not it's a valid target!

[Yunru]

But nothing says it has to be able to target you at the time of casting, just that it has to be able to target you.

[Aelyn]

But nothing says it has to be able to target you at the time of casting, just that it has to be able to target you.
This is a more reasonable argument, although I still disagree. The first two sentences of Contingency are, in full:


Choose a spell of or lower that you can cast, that has a casting time of 1 action, and that can target you. You cast that spell, called the contingent spell, as part of casting contingency, expending spell slots for both, but the contingent spell doesn't come into effect.
The second sentence makes it clear that the the Contingent spell is cast at the same time as Contingency, and on that basis I think that the criteria in the first sentence need to be true at that time.

Put it another way - would you say it's reasonable for a Wizard to select a Contingent spell which is in their spellbook, but which they don't currently have prepared? That's certainly a spell they "can" cast, but can't at the time Contingency is being cast. I would say that it's obviously not an okay choice, and I see the "can target you" restriction in the same way.

[OzDragon]

Ok, Lets look at this from another angle.

Ring of Spell Storing: This ring stores Spells cast into it , holding them until the attuned wearer uses them. Any creature can Cast a Spell of 1st through 5th level into the ring by touching the ring as the spell is cast. The spell has no effect, other than to be stored in the ring. While wearing this ring, you can cast any spell stored in it. The spell uses the slot level, spell save DC, spell Attack bonus, and Spellcasting Ability of the original caster, but is otherwise treated as if you cast the spell.

So by your reasoning of spell targeting you can not cast revivify into this ring as it's not a creature that has died in the last minute.

Contingent spell is just like a ring of spell storing that has specific spells it can use. Those that "can" target you.

Don't overthink this just to overthink this.

-emphasis mine.

[Aelyn]

Ok, Lets look at this from another angle.

Ring of Spell Storing: This ring stores Spells cast into it , holding them until the attuned wearer uses them...

So by your reasoning of contingent spell targeting you can not cast revivify into this ring as it's not a creature that has died in the last minute.
"Cast into" and "Cast targeting" aren't the same thing though?

[OzDragon]

"Cast into" and "Cast targeting" aren't the same thing though?


You are ok with cast into a ring with no target but not cast into the spell contingency with no target? It's the same thing.

[Aelyn]

You are ok with cast into a ring with no target but not cast into the spell contingency with no target? It's the same thing.
The ring doesn't explicitly ask for you to be able to target anything. Contingency does. That's why it's not the same thing.

[OzDragon]

The ring doesn't explicitly ask for you to be able to target anything. Contingency does. That's why it's not the same thing.

Your argument before was that you have to cast the spell at the time of casting contingency. And that the cast needed a target. And because of this it was invalid.

But the ring of spell storing asks you to cast the spell to store it in the ring. Not requiring a target. Contingency does not require a target. It requires specific spells. Ones that "can target you".

By your reasoning Revivify would be an invalid spell due to the ring not being a creature dead than one minute.

The ring and the contingency spells are very similar in that they store spells for later use. The ring requires someone to trigger it, contingency requires a circumstance.

I feel at this time you are arguing just to argue.

[Yunru]

This is a more reasonable argument, although I still disagree. The first two sentences of Contingency are, in full:


The second sentence makes it clear that the the Contingent spell is cast at the same time as Contingency, and on that basis I think that the criteria in the first sentence need to be true at that time.

Put it another way - would you say it's reasonable for a Wizard to select a Contingent spell which is in their spellbook, but which they don't currently have prepared? That's certainly a spell they "can" cast, but can't at the time Contingency is being cast. I would say that it's obviously not an okay choice, and I see the "can target you" restriction in the same way.

I would say yes, excepting that they also have to cast the spell a bit further into Contingency, not just be able to cast it. Whereas it has to be able to target you, but it doesn't until the effect resolves.

Edit: So the first sentence can be fulfilled at any indefinite point in time. For being able to cast the spell, it's when you cast it alongside Contingency. For being able to target you, it's when the effect resolves.

[Aelyn]

Your argument before was that you have to cast the spell at the time of casting contingency. And that the cast needed a target. And because of this it was invalid.

But the ring of spell storing asks you to cast the spell to store it in the ring. Not requiring a target. Contingency does not require a target. It requires specific spells. Ones that "can target you".

By your reasoning Revivify would be an invalid spell due to the ring not being a creature dead than one minute.

The ring and the contingency spells are very similar in that they store spells for later use. The ring requires someone to trigger it, contingency requires a circumstance.

I feel at this time you are arguing just to argue.
I... don't think you've understood my actual argument at all.

Contingency and the Ring are similar, but one of the differences is how they decide what spells are valid to use with them.

Contingency explicitly says that the Contingent spell needs to be one that can target you. My position is that, when casting Contingency, Revivify can't target you, and therefore Contingency doesn't let you have Revivify as the Contingent spell.

The Ring has no such limitation, so putting a Revivify into the Ring is fine.


I would say yes, excepting that they also have to cast the spell a bit further into Contingency, not just be able to cast it. Whereas it has to be able to target you, but it doesn't until the effect resolves.

Edit: So the first sentence can be fulfilled at any indefinite point in time. For being able to cast the spell, it's when you cast it alongside Contingency. For being able to target you, it's when the effect resolves.

See, from my perspective it's counterintuitive to put different timing requirements on the two parts. I see the requirement for "a spell you can cast" and "a spell that can target you" to be two things that must both be true at the same time - specifically, the time you cast Contingency.

It sounds to me now like it's almost a philosophical difference, where we both understand the other's position and see how they could reach that conclusion from the text, we just disagree with how they're interpreting the conditions.

Can you at least agree that there is some ambiguity, and that (as is so often the case) the best answer we can definitively give is "Ask your DM"?

[OzDragon]

I... don't think you've understood my actual argument at all.

Contingency and the Ring are similar, but one of the differences is how they decide what spells are valid to use with them.

Contingency explicitly says that the Contingent spell needs to be one that can target you. My position is that, when casting Contingency, Revivify can't target you, and therefore Contingency doesn't let you have Revivify as the Contingent spell.

The Ring has no such limitation, so putting a Revivify into the Ring is fine.

....I can't even....I'm really done this time.

[Mutazoia]

Contingency states that you "cast a spell that can target you." It doesn't say "cast a spell that can target you at that exact moment." Revivify CAN target you. Once you're dead. AND since Contingency will not cast Revivify on you until you are dead, you can slot Revivify into the Contingency and, as soon as you die, the Revivify is cast and CAN target you at that time, because you are dead. See how that works?

[Aelyn]

Contingency states that you "cast a spell that can target you." It doesn't say "cast a spell that can target you at that exact moment." Revivify CAN target you. Once you're dead. AND since Contingency will not cast Revivify on you until you are dead, you can slot Revivify into the Contingency and, as soon as you die, the Revivify is cast and CAN target you at that time, because you are dead. See how that works?

When do you choose the Contingent spell? When you cast Contingency.

My position is that the criteria need to be met at that time (because that's when Contingency is telling you to choose the spell), and at that time Revivify is not a spell that can target you. I think I've made that abundantly clear, and I've not really heard any good* counter-argument beyond "Nah, being able to cast you at a theoretically-possible time in the future is good enough."

In other words, continuing to make the assertion that it's good enough isn't the same thing as making an argument why it's good enough.

*I don't consider the "XGtE says any spell can target anything, even if it's an invalid target" argument to be a good one.

[Yunru]

It sounds to me now like it's almost a philosophical difference, where we both understand the other's position and see how they could reach that conclusion from the text, we just disagree with how they're interpreting the conditions.

Can you at least agree that there is some ambiguity, and that (as is so often the case) the best answer we can definitively give is "Ask your DM"?
Yes, because English.

[BurgerBeast]

...

(edit: your example of the teacher. The teacher DID understand the kid. The teacher is there to teach "formal" English, after all.)

The teacher understood the student despite the student being wrong. The student is wrong. That’s the point.

Formality is irrelevant. This is an error that permeates discussions about language: that if you are using language in an informal way, you can be wrong and right.

You can be wrong and understood. You can’t be wrong and right.

Formality only determines how forgiving one is toward errors. It doesn’t magically turn errors into non-errors.

The reason I point to this example and not your further elaborations is because this is the level at which you’re mistaken.

In my view you are making two errors in the context of this discussion: misapplying context (specifically applying an unwarranted degree of confidence), and conflating the notion that language can be understood with the notion that language is correct.

The entire reason that “I don’t know, can you?” is a thing is because of the overwhelming strength of the context. It is very nearly 100% true that the poser of the question is not meaning to ask if he/she has the ability, which makes the jest essentially zero risk.

Such cases are rare, and making inferences about meaning on less evidence is a risky business.

Edit: (Interestingly or ironically, one such case in which the evidence is also overwhelming, in my opinion, is the precise example you raised: spell X can target Y.

It seems painfully obvious to me that the writers mean: Y is a valid target for spell X, and not “spell X has the ability to target Y.”

Spells cannot target. Casters can target. Use of the phrasing you quoted notwithstanding.

Similar phrasing might appear in: “the attacks targeted innocent civilians.” We all know that the attacks did not target anything, because they can not. We can infer that a person targeted innocent civilians and attacked them.)

[CapnWildefyr]

RAW and RAI, the answer is Yes. There are a lot of posts about the meaning of the word "can" and the semantics of examples. I doubt the game designers spent more than a few minutes on the exact wording. They did not carefully match the wording and syntax and phrasing of every single spell against all the others. If they had tried we would all still be playing 3.5 or 4, because 5e still would be in production and the PH would be pushing 700 pages.

Consider examples of what will NOT work to see what it means. For example, contingency will not work with fog cloud, fireball, flaming scorcher (Aganazzar's), or ice storm because those spells do not target individuals. This may be a little interpretive but the "can" is not referring to the contingent spell's conditions but rather to whether the contingent spell has an appropriate type of target.

What is contingency for, if not to save yourself?

[BaconAwesome]

It's also worth noting that the only characters who could even potentially cast this are Bards that spend two of their Magical Secrets picks on it (as neither spell is on the Bard list), or an Arcana Cleric. There are no other characters that, by RAW, can cast both spells anyway.

It doesn't take away anything from your overall point, but contigency-revivify might also be cast by (1) a divine soul sorcerer using wish to cast contingency, or (2) a multiclassed character (albiet a fairly unoptimized split), right?

[Mutazoia]

It doesn't take away anything from your overall point, but contingency-revivify might also be cast by (1) a divine soul sorcerer using wish to cast contingency, or (2) a multiclass character (albeit a fairly unoptimized split), right?

Technically, one could have a cleric cast Revivify into a Ring of Spell Storing, and then cast Contingency, and "cast" Revivify from the ring as the contingent spell.

[Jerrykhor]

Just gonna put it here - If the Revivify doesn't take effect when cast as a Contingency spell, then why are you reading the text for the spell? The text block IS the effect, so if it doesnt take effect yet, nothing from the text should matter.

[BurgerBeast]

Just gonna put it here - If the Revivify doesn't take effect when cast as a Contingency spell, then why are you reading the text for the spell? The text block IS the effect, so if it doesnt take effect yet, nothing from the text should matter.

Except that the spell cast along with contingency must meet particular requirements, such as having a casting time of one action.

This is open to interpretation. It may be that any spell can be cast along with contingency, but if it doesn’t meet the requirements at the time of the trigger, nothing happens. I think this is what you’re driving at.

Alternatively, it may be that spells which don’t meet the requirements cannot possibly be cast along with contingency. (Edit: in which the DM is required to check)

I don’t see any reason to favour one interpretation over the other.