• Assuming I'm immune to daze (quick recovery does not work it seems, so any other way then like Mark of the Dauntless)
  • I resist it after doing my standard action acquired via celerity that I just cast (at the end of my turn so using the swift action from next turn)
  • If I have a contingency(celerity) with the condition: If I resist the daze effect directly after using celerity and there's still a threat around me: activate (or just if I resist the daze effect directly after casting celerity: activate if the threat criteria is too vague for the DM, could waste it this way but oh well it's already OP as it is).

    • That would give me another standard action right?
  • The immediate action (swift action of next round) is: casting the spell celerity (wich would had been used in advance with contingency) not having the actual benefit (standard action) from it right? and contingency(Celerity) should work Am-I right?

  • I know about contingent items with celerity loops, but is that
    really legal? I would ban this of course, but I guess I would allow two celerity benefits in one round if the contingency was well prepared in advance.

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ It's ok to downvote but please (as the website suggests) tell me something to improve the question/suggest edits, or provide an answer. Downvoting without doing anything, helps no one and you even lose reputation doing so. The community could benefit from your help. Please consider doing so. Thank you \$\endgroup\$ – Maxime Cuillerier Jan 24 '20 at 14:20
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't know why folks downvoted this question (I didn't), but I know that, personally, I'd like it to acknowledge that the chain of events it describes is at least somewhat dangerous to game balance and not suitable for all tables. Discussing this chain of events as if it were a commonplace practice gives what I think is a wrong impression of the game. (Downvoters should be aware, though, that it's possible that the asker didn't know that when the question was posed.) \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Jan 24 '20 at 18:12
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I totally get the frustration and want for feedback, but not getting comments about downvotes is actually a feature and not a bug at times. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jan 24 '20 at 18:12
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Also, slight point - Downvoting questions does not cost reputation points. \$\endgroup\$ – JohnP Jan 24 '20 at 18:44
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Downvoting because "no one will allow it" does not match the goal of the site. Put that OPINION elsewhere and present facts and a solid answer, instead. \$\endgroup\$ – nijineko Jan 25 '20 at 12:46

Before this is done at the table, talk to the DM and the other players. Be up front about what's going to happen: the character will, often during each encounter, be taking up to four standard actions pretty much in a row. First, the DM must be made aware of this so that she can account for creatures doing this. (Typically, what the PCs do the DM can also do, and the campaign setting may not have been designed with this in mind.) Second, the other players should be made aware that the character will be taking up a lot of game time. The other players should be prepared beforehand for their characters to be inconsequential for upwards of 20 min. while the DM adjudicates the character's multiple actions. Neither prospect may sit well. Abstractly and mechanically, taking a bunch of extra actions is awesome, but concretely and socially? Perhaps not so much.

Confirmation: A step-by-step example of one possible sequence

In the morning, a caster casts the 5th-level Sor/Wiz spell contingency [evoc] (Player's Handbook 213), picks as the companion spell the 4th-level Sor/Wiz spell celerity [trans] (Player's Handbook II 105), and picks as a condition something like Upon resolving the action granted by the second celerity spell that I cast in a round beginning on my turn. (A player can pick almost anything as a contingency spell's condition, but the DM determines if the condition is appropriate; see here.)

Later, during an encounter, on her turn the caster takes a standard action to cast a spell, takes a move action to move up to her speed, then takes a swift action to cast a celerity spell ("Using an immediate action on your turn counts as your swift action for that turn" (Rules Compendium 7)). She then takes the granted standard action as if she had readied an action. Normally, at the conclusion of this last action, the caster would gain the condition dazed (Player's Handbook 307), but the caster is immune to this condition. (N.b. Gaining immunity to the dazed condition tends to be resource-intensive.) Then her turn ends, and it's the next creature's turn.

At this point, a prescriptive reading of the celerity spell would limit the spell to being cast in response to a DM-approved stimulus because the standard action granted by the celerity spell is as if the caster had readied an action. However, a descriptive reading of the celerity spell—that reads its reference to the ready action as a comparison—allows the caster to cast to cast the celerity spell pretty much whenever, ready action trigger be damned. Either way, shortly after taking her second standard action the caster takes an immediate action to cast another celerity spell and takes this round her third standard action—this one, too, as if she had readied an action. (Taking an immediate action this way to cast this celerity spell—her second in the round that began with her turn—exhausts her next turn's swift action.)

Then, when that granted action is resolved, the contingency spell's condition is met, and the contingency spell's companion celerity spell is cast. The caster takes another standard action—her fourth this round—as if she had readied an action.


This sequence is complicated enough to warrant a summary. This summary is meant to supplement rather than replace the text above; refer to that text for details.

  1. Gain immunity to dazed.
  2. Before an encounter, cast contingency, picking celerity as the companion spell and picking Upon resolving the action granted by the second celerity spell that I cast in a round beginning on my turn as the condition.
  3. During an encounter, take your turn normally except for your swift action.
  4. Take your swift action to cast celerity.
  5. Take a standard action. End your turn.
  6. Take an immediate action to cast celerity again.
  7. Take another standard action.
  8. The companion celerity is cast is because the contingency condition's met. (This is not an action.)
  9. Take another standard action.
  10. It's now another creature's turn.

Note: The Lords of Madness feat Quick Recovery (181) is no help in resisting the dazed condition when chaining celerity spells: It's benefit kicks in specifically at the beginning of a creature's turn. What's needed is the Dragonmarked feat Mark of the Dauntless (142), but its prerequisite of a true dragonmark might make it unavailable in some campaigns. Further, while this DM doesn't require that real-world language be used in contingency spell conditions, comments make it clear that some DMs do. This sequence is likely much more difficult to employ if a contingency spell's condition must be mechanics-free.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @MaximeCuillerier Thank you. O, and I know what the feat Quick Recovery says, but it doesn't come into play until the creature begins its turn (n.b. not its action) being stunned or dazed. Then the creature can make a new saving throw or a Will saving throw, success meaning that condition ends and the creature loses for that turn a move action. \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Jan 24 '20 at 18:17
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Ok mark of the dauntless then, I play a silverbrow human, so it is totally justified to have a dragonmark in the campaign, I'll have to read about the houses/races and stuff, and it takes only one additionnal feat, I was supposed to take quick recovery in conjuction with force of personality, I'll just take least dragonmark and mark of the dauntless then (a least dragonmark is a True dragonmark). thank you Someone else suggested this earlier too but deleted his comment, thanks again if you ever read this. \$\endgroup\$ – Maxime Cuillerier Jan 24 '20 at 18:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Would you mind reformatting the answer to actually break down the sequence step by step? Or even action by action? (e.g. bullet points/numbers) Wall of text be hard to follow. :) \$\endgroup\$ – martixy Jan 29 '20 at 15:41
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ For these types of answers it is useful to have an easy to parse breakdown of the combo, so that readers can modify or swap out parts of the process to better suit their build or theorycrafting. Like the pseudocode to the algorithm you described. I mean it's not that big a deal, one can derive it on their own, but IMO it'd improve the answer. \$\endgroup\$ – martixy Jan 29 '20 at 17:44
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @martixy I hope the addition of the summary make things clearer. \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Jan 29 '20 at 20:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.