The Gaming Den

I'm not really good at these, so I could use some help setting them up. What are good uses? Just a buff as soon as you enter combat flat-footed?

How broken did you want these uses to be?

"When I point to the man that killed the king, I want Ghost Sound to make alarm claxons go off."

Game On,
fbmf

I've always considered some sort of escape (usually teleport) as near-mandatory. Also, you can set up virtual-quickened spells (when I cast fireball, I want another fireball at the same target) or use some random free-action trigger (when I touch my nose with my index finger, when I yell "jumping jennifer" etc.)

I like setting it up so that when grappled, I cast Lutzaen's Frequent Jaunt or Ghostform. That ends any grapple threats for that specific combat encounter.

fbmf wrote:How broken did you want these uses to be?

What do you have in mind?

I think the example from his post speaks for itself...

Also, for Clerics it's pretty cool to get a contingencied Heal (available at caster level 18).

Boulie_98 at [unixtime wrote:1096360242[/unixtime]]I think the example from his post speaks for itself...

Oh, wait. NOW I get it. You don't actually have to know who the killer is yourself. Spiffy.

Classics from my games:

Contingency: When I am targetted by a harmful spell that falls within it's range, cast Spell Turning on me.

Contingency: Whenever I am about to be harmed, and I am not aware of it, cast Ethereal Jaunt (or some other escape spell) on me.

Contingency: Whenever the Baroness speaks my name, cast Clairaudience/Clairvoyance at her location.

And, of course, the classic: Contingency: whenever a cute chick that can see me is thinking that she might want to flirt with me, cast an Empowered Eagle's Splendor on me.

Ess wrote:
Contingency: Whenever the Baroness speaks my name, cast Clairaudience/Clairvoyance at her location.

Don't you have to be the target of a contingency spell? IDHMBIFOM.

Game On,
fbmf

Most Contingencies are used like divination spells. Its seems that everyone abuses the open-ended nature of them while ignoring any "observable conditions" rules that some but not all of the spells adhere to.

Hopefully, the next version of of DnD with will a [Contingency] mod that describes how these spells work.

Otherwise, you can do crazy stuff like:

--Cast an X spell two rounds before I take damage.

--Cast X spell when the King Cahlancia orders a sherbert.

--Cast X spell at anyone with magical swag that I would want gets within 30' feet.

--Cast X spell when I'm in a situatiuon i can't handle

--Cast X spell at the best possible moment

--Cast X spell the next time a mind-effecting spell is cast on me.

By the same token, Scrying needs to be defined:

--Show me the face of a map showing the location to the nearest unguarded artifact.

--Show me the location of a X monster who would serve me out of friendship and love.

--Show me the pages of a book with X spell so that i can learn it.

--Show me the princess's killer

--Show me the the face of my nearest enemy

K wrote:By the same token, Scrying needs to be defined:

--Show me the face of a map showing the location to the nearest unguarded artifact.

--Show me the location of a X monster who would serve me out of friendship and love.

--Show me the pages of a book with X spell so that i can learn it.

--Show me the princess's killer

--Show me the the face of my nearest enemy

I don't think that half of those potential uses for Scrying would work either... Scrying looks at creatures, so seeking out a map with it would be dead useless. Likewise, looking at a book or a location would be impossible with the spell. Clairaudience/Clairvoyance might be able to handle the location of X monster (though you could, in theory, get to the monster with Scrying by asking for the spell to show you X monster who would serve, rather than the location of X monster), but also couldn't handle the map or book request unless you already knew where they were.

fbmf wrote:Don't you have to be the target of a contingency spell? IDHMBIFOM.

IDHMBIFOM = I don't have my books in front of me?

With this link, you don't have to!

3.5 SRD wrote:The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person...

So, yeah... Ess just didn't read.

Rather, Essence was talking about 3e contingency, where I don't think that's even true. Of course,t he 3.5 change doesn't actually require that it only affect your person, or even be a targetted spell. So you can have a Mass Charm go off, so long as you are one of the targets, and I think you could even have a vampiric touch go off when an opponent touched you - as it "affects" you (in that you get more hit points out of the deal).

-Username17

Maj wrote:Scrying looks at creatures, so seeking out a map with it would be dead useless.

Ok, so insert the the clause of "I'd like to Scry a creature who is within 10' of [insert object here]." Since you can see anything within 10' of the subject, you can read spellbooks or maps.

PS. The Unapproachable East book had a feat where any spell could be tacked onto people or objects with Contingency conditions, at a nomimal cost of scroll GP and XP for magic item creation.

Scrying targets a specific creature, not the subject of some clause.

There are only a set number of links you can have to set specific creature. You need to at least have heard of him, or have a picture, possession or body part.

So saying "A guy standing next to a map" just doesnt' work, as you're targetting the map, not any one specific guy. And you have no defined links to him.

The same goes with the princess' killer. Unless he left blood on the scene or some kind of possession, which would be sufficient to scry him, you couldn't do anything wtih it.

The scry rules really don't allow you to abuse them that much, aside from scry/teleport ambushes.

RC wrote: Scrying targets a specific creature, not the subject of some clause.

But as written it can target a creature that fulfills any criteria at all. Which unfortunately, includes "nearest creature within 10 feet on an artifact I want". It has a specific DC mod for "whatever creature attacked me last night" - so there's nothing to prevent that sort of thing.

-Username17

RC wrote:You need to at least have heard of him, or have a picture, possession or body part.

The rules are so poorly written that the "secondhand knowlege" clause can be used in place of just about anything you want.

Just tell some guy to tell you about "some guy that killed the princess" or "some wizard that knows Fireball and memorizes his spells at 8:21 am" and you now have all the secondhand/"you have heard of the subject" Knowelege you need.

If the spell had some clause like "must know the person's True Name" and there were rules for each person having a True Name, then the spell description would be accurate enough to not abuse.

The spell doesn't even say that you need an accurate description of the person to fufill any of the Knowledge criteria. You could have a likeness of a person who was Polymorphed into a dragon at the time, and the person you are trying to Scry saves at a -2. There are no True Form rules that say that conditional spells only target a creature's true form, or rules that say that the likeness has to be accurate or of the person's True Form.

You could even paint a picture of a dude, then say its the person you are looking for in Alter Self form, and they take a -2 and the spell will find them.

The "Possession or garment" rules are even funnier. One "I give this pair of socks to the Deep Dragon" and ye olde Dragon gets a -4 to his save. One "I give these socks to the killer of the princess," and you can target that dude even if you don't know one more thing about him. There are no True Ownership rules, so that works based on first principles. There is no rule detaling exactly what "possession" means. Does it mean any object you used, or an object you held for more than a day, or an object that you are holding right now? If a pair of socks are worn by rogue A on Tuesday and Wizard B on Wedsday, who's possession are they? Once I pick them up, do they become my possession? How long do they stay someone else's possession while they are on my feet?

There aren't even any Truth in Divination rules where the person casting the spell must believe that a shirt or likeness or hearsay is really part of the person he is trying to find to be valid components of the spell.

Sure, we think we know what the spell means, but that doesn't mean that the wording doesn't have holes large enough for a truck to drive through.

Basically, my point is that "conditional" spells like Scry or Contingency spells have no solid rules at all. Every single part of the spell is a DMs call, and so on a day-to-day basis they move from abusable to terribly underpowered.

At least the Symbol spells have a list of what kinds of conditions set them off, and what kind of conditions are valid. If they just took that text, then put it in the magic section under [conditional] subtype, then applied the subtype to all the crazy spells based on conditions, we'd all be much happier.

Not totally happy, just happier. Scry needs to be re-concepted for it to work at all.

Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1096497276[/unixtime]]
Just tell some guy to tell you about "some guy that killed the princess" or "some wizard that knows Fireball and memorizes his spells at 8:21 am" and you now have all the secondhand/"you have heard of the subject" Knowelege you need.

Well secondhand knowledge pretty much assumes the guy has some firsthand knowledge and is now passing it on to you. Telling you about some random guy that could or could not exist isn't secondhand knowledge, that's just something you made up. And is neither secondhand nor knowledge. And your scrying automatically fails.

If the spell had some clause like "must know the person's True Name" and there were rules for each person having a True Name, then the spell description would be accurate enough to not abuse.

True names just suck, because it leads to a bunch of absurdity where people cover up their true name and everyone goes by an alias. And you ultimately have separate spells to discover someone's true name, which basically have the same trouble current scrying spells have now.

I cannot express my loathing for stupid true name rules. They solve nothing and put you at a disadvantage if you don't use an alias.

If you want true names for demons and stuff that you can use to summon or control them fine. But the idea that mortals have true names sucks the big one.

The spell doesn't even say that you need an accurate description of the person to fufill any of the Knowledge criteria. You could have a likeness of a person who was Polymorphed into a dragon at the time, and the person you are trying to Scry saves at a -2.

Well, you are perfectly within your rights to say that the likeness no longer works if the target no longer looks like that. The very word "likeness" indicates it has to be accurate. A generic stick figure or a picture of some random griffon isn't a likeness of anyone, and shouldn't be treated as such. So if something ceases to be a likeness of someone, you are perfectly able to simply say it no longer fulfills that purpose for the spell.

If I have a picture of a bald guy with a long grey beard who looks like he's 60 years old and the guy is actually 20 years old with long black hair, then it simply wont' work. The likeness no longer actually exists.

The "Possession or garment" rules are even funnier. One "I give this pair of socks to the Deep Dragon" and ye olde Dragon gets a -4 to his save. One "I give these socks to the killer of the princess," and you can target that dude even if you don't know one more thing about him. There are no True Ownership rules, so that works based on first principles.

OK, now you're just getting stupid and absurd. To be a garment obviously the guy would have to wear it at one point. Now if you want to force the guy to wear your shirt, then scry him with it, that's ok, but to do that you gotta know where he is. To be a possession he has to have at one time possessed it. You can't simply "give" it to him without him in the area and now claim its his. That's just crazy, illogical and dumb.

There is no rule detaling exactly what "possession" means. Does it mean any object you used, or an object you held for more than a day, or an object that you are holding right now? If a pair of socks are worn by rogue A on Tuesday and Wizard B on Wedsday, who's possession are they? Once I pick them up, do they become my possession? How long do they stay someone else's possession while they are on my feet?

Up to the DM to decide, but really not much of a big deal. I'd say you can somewhat define the context of a possession depending on who you're looking for. You could for instance ask for "the last guy who held this ale mug" or something like that, but you couldn't say "the guy who killed the princess who held this ale mug" because that's totally independant of the ale mug itself and has nothing to do with possessing it.

There aren't even any Truth in Divination rules where the person casting the spell must believe that a shirt or likeness or hearsay is really part of the person he is trying to find to be valid components of the spell.

If it's not valid, they don't count. In other words your spell just fails, or you detect the wrong person. If you try to detect a guy who owned a shirt, and it happens not to be the guy you're lookjing for, you scry the wrong guy. If you happen to have secondhand knowledge AND use the guy's shirt, and they happen to be different people, I'd just say the spell fails outright as it can have only a single target. Alternately you can just say your material component fails to help the spell. It really doesn't matter that much.

Basically, my point is that "conditional" spells like Scry or Contingency spells have no solid rules at all. Every single part of the spell is a DMs call, and so on a day-to-day basis they move from abusable to terribly underpowered.

Is scry somewhat vague? Maybe a little. Is it possible to abuse? Not really, unless your DM is a moron.

Contingency I admit is a very abuseable spell, there are plenty of things you can do with it and what it actually senses is a total grey area. We really aren't sure what contingency "knows" and that's a problem. Limiting it to the knowledge of the caster is a fairly easy fix though.

Scry on the other hand is only abuseable if you want to have fun stretching the rules to rules lawyeresque limits that make you look like a total jackass and get you thrown out of the group. I fail to see how scry is a problem at all, unless your DM is letting you get away with total murder.

So scry isn't even a problem. You can pretty much tell how it's going to work.

RC wrote:True names just suck, because it leads to a bunch of absurdity where people cover up their true name and everyone goes by an alias.

I like the cultural sensitivity training you've obviously not gone through, it's working. People actually do that in some cultures, so I fail to see how it is "absurd" for people to do that in a world where magic functions.

-Username17

If you're wondering what constitutes to "possession," I suggest you look here: http://www.lysanderspooner.org/intellect/ch1s6.html

Clairaudience/Clairvoyance affects your person: it gives you the ability to see or hear someplace far away. Contingency doesn't say the spell has to *target* your person; just affect it. If suddenly looking at or listening to a room on the other side of the planet (or the other side of the castle, in 3.5) doesn't affect your person, what does?

Yeah, I know it's cheesy, but that was the point, wasn't it?

Frank wrote:Rather, Essence was talking about 3e contingency, where I don't think that's even true.

Actually... It is. I checked before posting. What I neglected to pay full attention to, though, is Clairaudience/Clairvoyance. I was unaware that the range had changed from anywhere on the plane to long range - which is straight ass.

And, of course, while I often think my husband is half-nuts in his interpretations, the phrasing of "must affect your person" is a bit... vague. The rules don't really do a good job of covering effect-creating spells that affect creatures (see also the Shadow Conjuration/SR farce).

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1096503403[/unixtime]]

RC wrote:True names just suck, because it leads to a bunch of absurdity where people cover up their true name and everyone goes by an alias.

I like the cultural sensitivity training you've obviously not gone through, it's working. People actually do that in some cultures, so I fail to see how it is "absurd" for people to do that in a world where magic functions.

-Username17

Because you gain nothing by revealing your name and everything by hiding it... so it just rewards munchkins who always want to remain anonymous and is thus stupid in a game environment.

That just doesn't make any sense. In cultures where they believe things work like that, you don't go around telling people your personal secret name. It's not munchkin, it's what you are supposed to do.

It's like people who have Birth Names and Christian Names, only more so.

-Username17

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1096509371[/unixtime]]
That just doesn't make any sense. In cultures where they believe things work like that, you don't go around telling people your personal secret name. It's not munchkin, it's what you are supposed to do.

It's like people who have Birth Names and Christian Names, only more so.

Then why bother to have them in the first place? The only way you'll ever find it out is with magic so it's pretty stupid.

You might as well just have a spell "scrying marker" instead.

I just don't see what they add to the game.

Seriously, what is your problem? There are a finite number of people who know your true name. True name magic can be used to find you, often even to heal you. So people you trust very much are going to be told your true name.

And if for some reason, they turn on you, that's bad. That's how that sort of thing works. The idea is that from a magical perspective you are taking a risk in the future if you want a witch to do the most she can for you.

It's a whole dynamic that is missing from D&D, but not because it's "dumb", it's because the flavor of D&D magic is designed as a hodge-podge and doesn't have the kind of coherent culture required to make a name system work.

-Username17