Numbered for your convenience:
1) What does the shadow conjuration spell mean, precisely, when it says "the shadow creature's AC bonuses are just one-fifth as large?"
2) Can you cast a shadowed mage armor or similar spell upon yourself with automatic success since you know it to have real elements? Or do you have to roll percentile even then? Or is it an automatic failure since you have undeniable proof that it isn't real?
3) If I summon a shadowed flying creature to rescue a falling friend, and he has adventured with me long enough to know I utilize illusions that are only partially real, how would he interact with the summoned creature (see #2 for context)?
4) Shadow evocation says "If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is one-fifth as strong (if applicable) or only 20% likely to occur," as well as "Nondamaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect." Are these two statements not contradictory?
5) If I use shadow evocation to emulate a daylight spell, and 3 of the 4 people in the area believe it to be real, what happens? Does the entire effect have a chance to fail for everybody just because the 4th person saw it as an illusion? Does it only risk failing for the 4th person, leaving him in the dark and others able to see? Or does it work for everyone regardless since light is light? What if I duplicated darkness instead? Would anything change?
6) Why do the shadow conjuration spells force spell resistance even when the duplicated spell does not, and yet the shadow evocation spells have no such restriction?
That's all he questions I have for now, but I may post more of them if I come up with any.
Numbered for your convenience:
1) What does the shadow conjuration spell mean, precisely, when it says "the shadow creature's AC bonuses are just one-fifth as large?"
Just wonky grammar. It should be something like, "the shadow creature's AC bonuses are just one-fifth that of the base creature."
2) Can you cast a shadowed mage armor or similar spell upon yourself with automatic success since you know it to have real elements? Or do you have to roll percentile even then? Or is it an automatic failure since you have undeniable proof that it isn't real?
Lol.. Clever!
But you would not be the one making any saving throw. The one making the saving throw would be the creature attempting to attack you and bypassing the Shadow Mage Armor.
The syntax of the spell reads:
Any creature that interacts with the spell can make a Will save to recognize its true nature.
It is a little counter-intuitive, but in your example above you're not the one who is really interacting with the spell- its the creature attempting to hit you.
If they make the Will save, it's only 20% effective. Otherwise it is 100% effective.
]3) If I summon a shadowed flying creature to rescue a falling friend, and he has adventured with me long enough to know I utilize illusions that are only partially real, how would he interact with the summoned creature (see #2 for context)?
This is a little munchkiny.. but I would play it straight as a GM and have the falling PC make a standard Will save (whether the Player really wanted to or not). That is, don’t read into it. It calls for a Will save, so have the PC make it. If he made the save, perhaps I would have the effect simulate a feather fall since the shadowy creature really couldn't have the strength to hold him up and fly.
If you feel uneasy about it, give a bonus to the PC to make his Will save (whether he wants it or not), but that is a subjective GM call and there are pros and cons either way. One might argue character knowledge versus PC knowledge and so on and so on.. The simplest way is a standard Will save like just like any other instance.
4) Shadow evocation says "If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is one-fifth as strong (if applicable) or only 20% likely to occur," as well as "Nondamaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect." Are these two statements not contradictory?
The first sentence speaks to damaging effects, which tend to be easily quantifiable in a numeric expressions, i.e. 20% of 5d6 fire damage is 1d6 fire damage. The second sentence speaks to non-damaging effects. That's the key point you're missing.
What if you conjured a Shadow Nymph who used charm person on an enemy? How do you quantify 20% of charm?
5) If I use shadow evocation to emulate a daylight spell, and 3 of the 4 people in the area believe it to be real, what happens? Does the entire effect have a chance to fail for everybody just because the 4th person saw it as an illusion? Does it only risk failing for the 4th person, leaving him in the dark and others able to see? Or does it work for everyone regardless since light is light? What if I duplicated darkness instead? Would anything change?
The effect is subjective to each person affected. So each affected creature would make their own saving throw, and experience whatever happens based on that. Now if someone makes their saving throw and shouts out their experience to the others- that might provoke a new saving throw for the others at a bonus.
6) Why do the shadow conjuration spells force spell resistance even when the duplicated spell does not, and yet the shadow evocation spells have no such restriction?
Good question. Probably because the effect is illusion based, no matter what it is pretending to be. Conjuration effects that do not permit spell resistance are usually bringing something into existence that is independent of the target. For example: solid fog is not dependent on any target. You can cast it when no one else is around. It exists independent of whatever is inside of it. Ergo, spell resistance doesn't affect it. However with shadow conjuration it is entirely based upon the target interacting and believing in it.
Hope this helps!
3) If I summon a shadowed flying creature to rescue a falling friend, and he has adventured with me long enough to know I utilize illusions that are only partially real, how would he interact with the summoned creature (see #2 for context)?
I played a small shadowdancer and tried to use it in this context as limited fly (getting carried across town to the combat) but got nixed on that I can't auto-fail my own shadow conjurations.
Couldn't one of your party members auto-fail and get caught?
1: I believe this mean that any natural armor or armor bonuses the creature may have are cut down due to the non-real nature of the spell. I cannot find anything in the rules stating that Dexterity bonus to AC would stay at it's normal level but it would make sense to keep the illusionary creatures Dex at it's normal amount as it's ability to move should not be affected by another creature perceiving it as an illusion.
2: The mage armor spell would provide +4 AC vs any creature that failed it's saving throw and no bonus (4/5=.8, round down to 0) vs creatures that make their save. If your opponents perceive you as wearing armor of some sort they will likely aim away from it to hit you in unarmored areas, if they see that your armor is fake then they do not need to stop attacking your torso. Though spell resistance might not apply unless they are attacking with unarmed or natural attacks, bit of a grey area.
3: He can voluntarily fail his saving throw, if he did disbelieve the illusion for some reason then it is sort of up to the DM. You could rule that the creatures carrying capacity is one fifth it's normal amount, or that it only has a 20% chance to catch your ally.
4: Yes and no, I believe this is saying that if the spell has a non damaging effects in addition to a damaging effect then they are 20% likely to be affected. Lets take an example of two spells, one knocks a creature prone the other causes damage and knocks a creature prone. The spell that knocks a creature prone would have no effect vs a non believer and the spell that deals damage would deal 1/5th the normal damage and have a 20% chance to affect non believers.
5: Using shadows to make light, I have always thought this was odd. If they do not voluntarily fail their will save then they would see shadows instead of light. If your DM allowed it this could be used to give your allies the ability to see while plunging everyone who actually makes their save into darkness, or at least dim light.
6: Because. Who are YOU to question the all knowing core rulebook and it's apparent contradictions!?
|
Saves: pg 217
A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result.
Thus, even though you know it's an illusion spell, that doesn't really matter. Your will save basically keeps the illusory effect from affecting you. If you choose to forego it, then you ignore the illusory part. Even as the spells caster, you can fail your will save. So you *should* have been able to use your conjuration to get across town. You should point out to your dm that it's a house rule.
Saves: pg 217
A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result.
Thus, even though you know it's an illusion spell, that doesn't really matter. Your will save basically keeps the illusory effect from affecting you. If you choose to forego it, then you ignore the illusory part. Even as the spells caster, you can fail your will save. So you *should* have been able to use your conjuration to get across town. You should point out to your dm that it's a house rule.
Emphasis is mine, but I quoted everything to provide fair context. What I put in boldface, however, is what I'm really responding to.
I don't disagree with you. That is what the rules say.
It also amounts to "throwing yourself at the ground and missing", or being told that a magic carpet will fly so long as you don't think of elephants (i.e. it's hard not to think of something you know that you're not supposed to think of).
Because RAW is basically saying that you have the choice to believe something you know to be false. And this is not something intangible like "is my girlfriend being faithful to me while I'm away for the summer", but rather "am I going to plummet to my death while being held high aloft of the hard hard ground by ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! AIEEEE!"
Some of the lies we tell ourselves are easier to accept than others.
Personally, I would not get confrontational with a GM over this, or level some accusation of "house ruling" at them (as if a GM using their best judgment was ever a bad thing). I'd make my best case and then respect my GM's decision.
Again, I am not disagreeing with the interpretation of RAW in this case.
I'm disagreeing with the advice to get in your GM's face and telling them that they're making stuff up. Part of the GMs responsibility is making a good call when RAW permits odd and silly stuff.
We are discussing things per RAW, it is a DMs job to say if something is just ridiculous. But since this is a question about the rules of the game RAW is all we can go by.
Secondly, the conjured creature is not completely false. It it material from the plane of shadow molded into a shape and animated by the caster, that is why you can use shadow conjuration to do this and not just using major image to make the person think they are being caught by a flying creature.
I would like to make a note about casting a spell to catch a falling ally, using realistic physics it absolutely does not work. In order to get the spell off it takes 6 seconds (1 round) in that time the person already would have fallen over 1000 feet, outside the spells area and they would have enough speed that any sudden deceleration (such as from being caught or hitting the ground) would be enough to flatten them. I cannot remember if there is a set speed that you fall in pathfinder though I would assume it is going to be outside the limited range of a summoning spell anyways unless you had readied an action to cast it.
We are discussing things per RAW, it is a DMs job to say if something is just ridiculous. But since this is a question about the rules of the game RAW is all we can go by.
Absolutely. :D
Which is why I replied to a statement that suggested that players should confront their GMs about making "house rules". I never said it wasn't RAW.
And actually, I never look upon these threads as "RAW Statements", but rather rule discussions. That is what the subforum is called. Meaning the goal is not to always to find the one correct answer, but to find the best ruling. If all we ever do is haggle about what is RAW, we don't actually help someone be a good GM.
Sometimes there is an absolute right answer, and sometimes things are a little more murky. This is a specific instance where the GM's role as adjudicator shouldn't be diminished by citing RAW.
GMs need be able to reconcile RAW and good judgment.
Secondly, the conjured creature is not completely false. It it material from the plane of shadow molded into a shape and animated by the caster, that is why you can use shadow conjuration to do this and not just using major image to make the person think they are being caught by a flying creature.
Absolutely :D
Which is why earlier in this thread I suggested that the Shadow Conjuration would have some effect. Like providing feather fall to the falling character.
Likewise, I'd concede that the shadow conjuration should be able to have *some* affect on the person wanting to fly. Is it enough to get them off the ground and moving at a good clip? I dunno... Probably not, but that's just my off-the-cuff thought on the matter.
I half imagine someone being dragged down the street the ground with their toes dragging along the ground.
I would like to make a note about casting a spell to catch a falling ally, using realistic physics it absolutely does not work. In order to get the spell off it takes 6 seconds (1 round) in that time the person already would have fallen over 1000 feet, outside the spells area and they would have enough speed that any sudden deceleration (such as from being caught or hitting the ground) would be enough to flatten them. I cannot remember if there is a set speed that you fall in pathfinder though I would assume it is going to be outside the limited range of a summoning spell anyways unless you had readied an action to cast it.
I felt very much the same way. There is a reason why feather fall is an instant spell.
However I elected not to go there because I knew there would be a pushback to suggesting that RAW shouldn't trump GM common sense.
I played a small shadowdancer and tried to use it in this context as limited fly (getting carried across town to the combat) but got nixed on that I can't auto-fail my own shadow conjurations.
Couldn't one of your party members auto-fail and get caught?
Oooooh! Subquestion. If my chara has a shadow companion and a ghost touch weapon and is able to be carried by someone with a 10 str (base for incorporeal creatures with -- str when acting on things like ghost touch objects), can he now effectively fly as the shadow can make physical contact with him via the weapon?
|
|
Wait: you disagree that you should point out to the dm how the rules actually work?
Frankly, if the dm doesn't know how the rule is supposed to work, (s)he can't make any sort of reasonable evaluation and/or decide if a house rule needs to be implemented.
If the dm is changing the way that saving throws work with spells, then that's a house rule and something that as the dm, (s)he should have made clear before the campaign even started.
If your dm ever rules something against how the game rules work, and never mentioned this particular house rule to you, then he's probably misinterpreting the rules.
So you clarify how the rules work. Then the dm either states that it's a house rule, or tells you that yes, your character would expect it to work that way but it doesn't, so there's probably something else going on as well.
If your dm is making house rules left and right without informing the players about it, then the players are at a significant disadvantage.
Player "I cast grease."
DM "Ok, everyone roll a save against a negative level from that grease spell."
Players "WHAT?!"
Yes, an extreme example, but if the players don't know the rules, then they can't play the game. For things, like spells, that should entirely fall within the realm of character knowledge, you shouldn't be surprising your players by changing the way the rules work without telling them first.
I don't know about you, but many times as a player I've pointed out how a particular rule actually works to a dm. And many times as a dm, I've had a player do the same for me. Sometimes the rule is being misapplied, sometimes there is something else going on. But if it's a house rule, then generally it should have been covered by the dm as early as possible.
There are times when a dm does have to make an adhoc call, but this spell isn't one of them. The dm actually has to decide that he doesn't like the way the spell functions and change it from that. Not because the spell is unclear about how it works.
I see no reason why a caster wouldn't trust in his own creation, since he knows he has to actively attempt to resist it with his will for it to fail. Just like any other spell he casts on himself. If he's having this sort of problem, then he might resist his mage armor, since his will save can negate that too. Add in pretty much every other buffing spell.
Playing devil's advocate.
Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
Yay Mage armor works on me and I can catch my falling ally (if he falls far enough)! But...
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw.
...what about this? Which of the two rules wins out?
Playing devil's advocate.
Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.Yay Mage armor works on me and I can catch my falling ally (if he falls far enough)! But...
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw....what about this? Which of the two rules wins out?
Needs no saving throw doesn't prevent you from making one if you want (and intentionally failing). Just like you can technically make a save against a saving throw: harmless spell, but you don't have to unless you want to. At least, that's how I'd read it.
Wait: you disagree that you should point out to the dm how the rules actually work?
No. Completely the opposite in fact. What I actually said was to talk things over with the GM, state your case, and then respect the GMs decision..
You cited RAW, and encouraged a poster to confront their GM about making up "house rules". Later you describe that you feel it's only good form to talk things over because not everyone understands the rules. (I'm paraphrasing for brevity). Excellent! However that was not your initial stance.
And... I actually said you understood RAW correctly. Let me repeat that, you understand RAW correctly. The rules permit you to believe your own illusions and achieve all kinds of wacky effects. Would I "house rule" that? You betchya. DONE! Lol
In this specific case, steadfast adherence, to RAW without generous application of common sense is not a good GMing technique. My opinion only.
I'm not going through the rest of your examples, because it's not necessary.
With that, I believe we're at an impasse.
Wait: you disagree that you should point out to the dm how the rules actually work?
There are times when a dm does have to make an adhoc call, but this spell isn't one of them. The dm actually has to decide that he doesn't like the way the spell functions and change it from that. Not because the spell is unclear about how it works.
I see no reason...
I appreciate what you're saying, but I think as an on-the-fly ruling it was fine. I agree with my DM that with a strange usage like a limited fly spell (air elemental at 400' in a straight line for 4 rounds?) that the power of the shadow call goes up quite a bit.
My reasoning was yours when I proposed my course of action and my DM, whom I trust implicitly, thought about it and decided that it seemed counter-intuitive that for a strange usage like this (instead of the summons as cannon fodder) that my chara could choose to believe something that he knows (b/c he made it) to be an semi-illusion, but also equally counter-intuitive that it just fails when the elementals could pound on me at 20% strength if commanded to do so.
He ruled that the ability of the air elemental to carry my character should work, 20 percent of the time. It wasn't what I wanted, but I think it's a fair viewing on what I feel is a rather ambiguous spell. I think the ambiguity is likely a product of the spell having such a wide scope of use. If we had a heavy like Buhlmann or Jacobs weigh in, I'm sure he'd change his tune, but otherwise I think his ruling is sound logically and fair; not something I view as a house rule.
|
|
Actually, Watcher, that was my initial stance. If the dm doesn't tell the players that he's making a house rule, then the player doesn't assume it's a house rule. He assumes it's a mistake, and should make it clear to the gm that the rules don't work that way.
As I posted in my original post.
Then, the dm can clarify that it's a house rule or a mistake.
My actual line was:
"You should point out to your dm that it's a house rule."
And you should, because otherwise the dm might continue thinking that the rules actually work that way.
Unfortunately, you read some sort of player against dm conflict there, one which wasn't implied by the statement.
After all, pointing something out isn't an "accusation". Nor is it "getting in your gm's face and telling them they're making stuff up" It seems like a really hostile interpretation of a comment.
Additionally, the context of the post about flying across town wasn't directed at you, but rather the poster immediately below you who said:
"I played a small shadowdancer and tried to use it in this context as limited fly (getting carried across town to the combat) but got nixed on that I can't auto-fail my own shadow conjurations."
So, either the dm made a house rule about the spell on the spot, or misapplied the rules. Since if the dm made the ruling prior to it, the player wouldn't have tried to use it in that matter. Thus, the player needs to clarify that the dm intentionally house-ruled it, instead of just misapplying the rules.
Again, I wasn't implying any sort of crazy escalating hostility between the players and the gm. I think you were attempting to apply my original comment to your post, instead of backinblacks original post.
At no point did I question what you thought about my position on RAW. Second time you've mentioned that you didn't.
Also, at no point did I express a viewpoint that raw should be adhered to at the expense of the game. I don't know where you got that from either. As I've stated plenty of times in the past, it's important to understand what the raw is saying before you make a personal evaluation on whether or not to change it. Also, as I've said before, I think that raw should be clarified in the rules forums, with house rules clearly labeled as such. Again note that none of those comments express a negative view of house rules.
I wasn't attacking your viewpoint, I was replying to backinblack, commenting on the information provided in an attempt to help him get clarity with his dm on house rule vs simple error.
Then you posted, seemingly disagreeing with getting a simple clarification from the dm. You can understand how strange that sounds, and why a reasonable player/dm might find issue with it.
At no point has my stance changed on the topic. Additionally, you seem to be reacting in a fairly hostile manner without provocation. Both posts you directed at me come off as highly aggressive and insulting. It's fine when I've actually earned such a negative reaction, but in this case I haven't. So please stop.
backinblacK, you might point out the saving throw entry to your dm if you haven't yet, and see what he says about it in conjunction with the spell.
Fair enough. I did take what you wrote as confrontational. However if you say that is not how you intended, I have no reason not to believe you. I'm perfectly willing to chalk it up to a misunderstanding.
Allow me to apologize. My sincere regrets. :D
Too often in these rule discussions I've come across someone who will stick to RAW even if the rules said "drink battery acid". They won't even agree to disagree, at best they'll agree that you're wrong. Lol.
So I probably had my back up. Sorry again.
If your dm ever rules something against how the game rules work, and never mentioned this particular house rule to you, then he's probably misinterpreting the rules.
Or he didn't feel it was necessary to provide an encyclopedic summary of his house rules and thought you trusted him to run the game.
So you clarify how the rules work. Then the dm either states that it's a house rule, or tells you that yes, your character would expect it to work that way but it doesn't, so there's probably something else going on as well.
Really, you ought save the rules discussion for after the session, or ask for a short break and discuss the matter away from the table. Unless a character's being irrevocably killed, rules shenanigans don't belong at the table. Let the GM run his table as he's going to run it and circle back to the matter later.
I see no reason why a caster wouldn't trust in his own creation, since he knows he has to actively attempt to resist it with his will for it to fail.
Except that he *knows* the spell is an illusion and we know:
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw.
Sure, it's a shadow, and shadows are "partially real," but then they're partially unreal, too. Trying to say that the caster can fail the save that he doesn't need is disingenuous. It's looking for a loophole to justify the usage, or picking the most advantageous order to apply a series of rules and that way lies rules-lawyery-madness.
Really, it would better if it said that casters could treat their shadow illusions as wholly real or wholly unreal as they so desired, but had to decide which upon each casting (as needed)-- unfortunately it doesn't.
-Ben.
I think that both of you (magicdealer and watcher) make great points. Knowing and mentioning that the ruling is technically against the rules as written to your GM, but being respectful while doing so.
All the other stuff was just the loss of inflection b/c of the text. Cheers guys!
~m
I think that both of you (magicdealer and watcher) make great points. Knowing and mentioning that the ruling is technically against the rules as written to your GM, but being respectful while doing so.
All the other stuff was just the loss of inflection b/c of the text. Cheers guys!
~m
Except that I'm taking it all back.
I couldn't get my head around it. I was stuck, because this ability to fail a Saving Throw looks fairly black and white.. but it's a perversion of RAW.
Let's start with the definition of an Illusion. Emphasis mine.
Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others.
Now, as Terraleon quoted, let's look rules pertaining making Will saves against illusions.
A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
This entire argument that you can fail a Saving Throw and thus believe your own illusion boils down to making a saving throw when one is not needed.
A Saving Throw is something a GM requires you to do in response to something that happens to you in the game. It's not a privilege that a player can invoke when circumstances don't warrant one. You don't elect to make a Saving Throw because it works to your favor.
You can choose to fail a Saving Throw, but you can't decide that you need one, when the rules say that you don't.
To hammer this point home, I offer this humorous dramatic scenario:
GM: That's okay, you don't need to save against that illusion, because you have proof that it isn't real.
Player: But if it's all the same, I'd like to make my saving throw anyway.
GM: Beg pardon?
Player: I'd like to make my Saving Throw and then deliberately fail it.
GM: But.. you're not being asked to make a Saving Throw. You don't need to make one.
Player: But the rules say I can fail any saving throw. It's RAW.
GM: Sure.. When you actually need to make a Saving Throw, that's true. But you don't make saving throws when you don't need to..
Player: But it's really convenient for me to make a saving throw right now.
GM: I'm sorry, but I'm not asking you to make a Saving Throw. The Rules are not calling for you to make a Saving Throw.
Player: But I can fail a Saving Throw if I want!
GM: When it's actually appropriate to make a Saving Throw in the first place!!
Player: Then you're making this your own personal rule!
GM: NO! Look, if you were walking down the street, I wouldn't call for you to make a Reflex Save. Nor would I allow you to make a Saving Throw just because you wanted to make one. Why? Because walking down a street is not particularly difficult. Neither is breathing. Neither is remembering your name. Neither is recognizing something is an illusion when you're the one who actually created it in the first place! You can fail any Saving Throw you want, but you can not just decide that circumstances mandate a Saving Throw when they patently don't.
Player: .............. But... The rules don't specifically say that I can't decide that I need a Saving Throw, if I really want it. I feel that it's best that I save against my own illusion, because I'm easily confused.
GM: And I feel there's something better I could be doing with my time.
*makes several good points*
Still, a shadow-based illusion is real, maybe not in whole, but certainly in part. Couldn't one argue that, that realness is enough to lift a falling comrade or manipulate one's ability to avoid harm (via mage armor)? I doubt anyone would deny that a shadow monster eviscerating an enemy isn't real. I don't see how saving a falling ally is any different.
In the end, I think it best if we could get some official input, not so much to put the matter to rest, but to clarify the way it was originally meant to work. Is it supposed to be rather limited, as your several good points imply? Or is is meant to be a truly versatile set of spells?
6) Why do the shadow conjuration spells force spell resistance even when the duplicated spell does not, and yet the shadow evocation spells have no such restriction?
I found the answer to #6.
As it turns out, shadow evocation DOES have that restriction. It clearly says "Spell Resistance Yes." As such, I guess they didn't need to include wording like that found in shadow conjuration since it would only be redundant and moot.
|
|
first part here is a reply to terraleon, that just naturally segue-ways into the meat and potatoes of the post :)
First, there's trust. And then there's blind faith in a persons infallibility. Personally, I don't think anyone is infallible, thus even the gm will make mistakes at times.
Second, if you'll notice, at no point did I say "jump up and scream at the dm that he's wrong!". If you read the post in context, I was replying to a player where that event had ALREADY happened. Is it necessary to specify to that player that he shouldn't go back in time and interrupt his dm? Not really, since the laws of physics make that impossible. I can safely assume that he'll have to talk to his dm at a different time.
However, if the situation did pop up at a table, surely if you trust your dm you should feel comfortable about pointing out possible rules issues right there instead of worrying about some repercussion. With a trusting relationship between the two of you, a quick clarification shouldn't hurt anyones feelings. Assuming, of course, it doesn't interrupt the game flow. If it does cause issues, then there IS a trust issue somewhere between the player and the dm.
Thirdly, (if thirdly is in fact a word)
We know that a shadow conjuration is only 1/5th as strong as the real thing, though creatures who believe the shadow conjuration to be real are affected by them at full strength. Making additional assumptions about an entry *such that a character doesn't make a save* is ignoring the way a particular rule works. You might not like that it seems a bit odd, but as I've stated before I think it's important to get the raw straight before deciding what and how to house rule. It's not "looking for a loophole", it's looking for the truth of the raw, so that reasonable adjustments can then be made from facts. Heck, if you don't find and point out little oddities like this, you'll never get them errated or clarified.
You can either delve into an argument with the dm over the nature of reality and/or existence, or you can try to follow the mechanics as much as possible.
Assuming, of course, the mechanics angle, you've got a few options.
The spell provides a saving throw with will disbelief (if interacted with).
Now, I haven't seen an entry anywhere about the caster of the spell not having to make saving throws against his spells. The closest entry to that would be the one quoted by watcher, however the line doesn't say that the character is denied a saving throw. Not needing a saving throw, and not getting a saving throw, are two different things.
Failing a saving throw against a shadow conjuration is no different than the wizard saying "I know from how the spell works that all I have to do is just accept the spell as it looks, and it will function the exact same way."
Notice it's a similar argument to one posted earlier about convincing oneself that a wall of fire isn't real.
The caster should be able to believe in the power of his spells, including following the rules regarding saving throws normally for any particular illusion spell.
Obviously, there are two opinions on this matter. One being that the caster should never be able to believe his own illusions, one being that the caster should be able to believe his own illusions if he so chooses.
But opinions are more helpful in deciding how to rule spell in a particular game. I want to take a careful look at the rules themselves, so we know whether or not we need to house rule.
For illusion spells, on page 210 of the core book, I don't see any line that removes a saving throw. Additionally, the line:
"A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw."
isn't really applicable to shadow spells, since shadow spells do create real effects, and thus don't provide proof that the spell isn't real.
So, illusion (shadow) spells aren't affected by that line at all.
However, the line on page 217 about saving throws still applies:
"A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result."
So, regardless, a creature can always accept a spells result. Now, back to shadow conjuration on page 340.
Saving throw Will disbelief (if interacted with)
A character doesn't even need to make a saving throw until the creature is interacted with.
Having a particular creature fly you from one place to another would count as interaction.
Will save, choose to fail, you're done.
The only other section that potentially provides a wrinkle is the second to last paragraph of the spell entry.
"Against a creature that recognizes it as a shadow creature, however, the shadow creature's damage is one-fifth of normal, and all special abilities that do not deal lethal damage are only 20% likely to work. Furthermore, the shadow creature's ac bonuses are just one-fifth as large."
Thankfully, the spell is very specific about what is affected. The creatures damage, special abilities, and ac bonuses.
Is flight a special ability? No, it's a movement type.
On page 6 of the bestiary, we see that Special abilities is a specific section of a creatures stat block, that isn't directly related to movement.
A good example of this can be seen on page 8, where the aboleth has a speed of 10, swim 60.
Very separately is the special abilities entry, which includes mucus cloud and slime.
So, recognizing a creature as a shadow creature doesn't affect its movement type or ability to interact with you, beyond the three entries mentioned.
And being able to fail will saves prevents any other issues from cropping up.
Since there is no entry that I have found, or that prevents the caster from rolling a save, and additionally since even making a successful save doesn't *as per the spell* affect the creatures ability to make non-combat physical contact or to fly, there's no reason per raw as to why a shadow conjuration couldn't fly its caster across the town.
An issue one poster had with this was taken from the illusion section. The line read:
"Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others."
Well, taken from the illusion section we also get:
"Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing,"
"Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it"
"A phantasm spell creates a mental image that usually only the caster and the subject (or subjects)) of the spell can perceive."
"Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion."
Each of these sentences provide examples of places where a caster could be affected. The section allows an out for casters to bypass their own illusions, but doesn't make it a requirement. After all, sometimes it's necessary to believe the illusionary wall is real so you're not subject to a gaze attack. I mention this because I vaguely remember this being used in a module somewhere. Maybe someone remembers it :p
If you think that this is a misinterpretation of raw, well, there's not much I can do about that. Personally, I think that reading and applying the rules as directly as possible brings us to a clear conclusion. Saving throws are in response to some action. Sometimes it's on the part of the dm, sometimes its on the part of the player. Throwing a fireball on top of yourself forces you to make a reflex save. Casting an illusion spell never states that the caster doesn't make a save. Only that one isn't necessary, which is a far cry from removing the saving throw.
I believe that the raw is understandable and, once each element is examined, fairly easy to implement. Additionally, I personally think that the raw handles it the right way. It doesn't make sense to me that a spellcaster can't choose to believe *or not* those spells which include an element of both illusion and reality. I think it further limits these already pretty limited spells.
As to the conversation between player and gm, I imagine it going like this.
Player: I'm casting shadow conjuration to bring in a creature to fly me across the city.
GM: Ok, doesn't that not work because it's an illusion?
Player: Well, the book says I don't need a saving throw, but I'm choosing to focus on the realness of the creature. If you want, I can roll my will save and auto fail it. Also, it's not all illusion. Even if I disbelieve it, it's still 20% effective. It deals less damage, but it doesn't mess with my ability to touch it. Actually, since it lowers the ac it makes it easier for me to touch it.
GM: Well.. the entry doesn't say that you don't roll your save anyways.
Player: Yup. Also, belief or disbelief doesn't affect any of the elements I need from it to fly me across the city.
GM: Ahh, ok, well what's the fly speed? I'll tell you how many rounds it takes to get there.
This, actually, is a pretty common type of exchange in my group. Sometimes I'm on the players side of this, sometimes I'm on the gm's side :p Right now, I'm the GM.
I am, of course, willing to further debate the raw of the subject :)
I notice some of you guys are spending a lot of thread space simply dissecting each others' statements rather than actually discussing the main topic. Please stop.
Also, I had another question:
7) I use shadow magic to imitate the CREATE FOOD AND WATER spell for a banquet I am hosting. My friends and I partake and some of them make their saves and some don't. Does anyone get any sustenance from the shadow food? Why or why not? Also who?
8) How would you rule in the following situation?
Say I created a "shadow wall of ice" in order to stop my enemies' advancement. Naturally, when they stop to feel it out or hack through it they all get Will saves to disbelieve.
But let's say one of them passes his save and realizes it is illusory. Rather than tell his allies (which would get them a second save with a +4 bonus) he simply charges on through.
The others clearly see him go through the wall, though they may not know how he did it.
Would you say that, that is "definitive proof" and have them all automatically pass their saves? Or would they stand around in confusion, possibly trying to hack through the wall--or attempting to simply try and run through it like their friend (only to break their noses)?
A friend of mine said that if he were GM, he would grant them all a second save with a +4 bonus, just as if the first guy had called it out as an illusion, but I am curious to hear your guys' thoughts on the matter.
It would be hilarious if they failed the second save too.
"Hey guys! Over here! It looks like Joey found a passage through!"
*runs toward wall where Joey disappeared*
CRACK!
"Ack! Vye nose!"
|
|
7)
I don't think you can sue any of the core book shadow spells to duplicate create food and water since it's a cleric spell. Additionally, you fall into the issue of whether or not the spell provides sustenance even after the food dissipates. Yeah, yeah, I know :P It would depend on the spell you used to create the effect. If it were 20% real on a save, then those people might have to eat 5x more to feel full.
Also, "A creature that succeeds on its save sees the shadow conjurations as transparent images superimposed on vague, shadowy forms."
Assuming this is the kind of spell you're using, they probably won't want to eat the food.
Those who make their saves should get nourishment as normal because the entry for shadow conjuration mentions that folks who believe the effect is real is affected by the spell at full strength. In this case, that would be full nourishment.
8)
I would say that, because a shadow evocation is 1/5 there even if disbelieved, the player wouldn't have been able to just run through in the first place. He'd have to chop through that 1/5 thickness :D
Now, just a regular illusion of a wall of ice, I think having a character run through it and assuming that the characters know each other well would be proof. Unless, of course, that character had some way to teleport or shadow jump or some such. In which case, I would give them a +4 bonus to the save.
As in, if they're fairly sure he doesn't have some magical ability to bypass the wall, they're going to figure it for an illusion. If he does have such an ability, they won't be sure. They can roll with a bonus but not an auto success.
Ravingdork,
I've skimmed this, so I am not going to respond to all the subsequent posts. However you raised one observation that I would like to reply to..
You mentioned the partial reality.
No argument there. If one were to cast shadow conjuration on one's self, even though no Saving Throw is called for or required- you could still enjoy the 20% effectiveness of the spell. That's written right in the language of the spell. I just glossed over that in addressing the entire "failing the Save against your own illusion" component of the debate.
I would always allow the 20% effectiveness, or have something work 20% of the time (as called for by the spell) under any circumstance.
However, that goes right back to this kettle of fish(emphasis mine):
Against a creature that recognizes it as a shadow creature, however, the shadow creature's damage is one-fifth (20% normal), and all special abilities that do not deal lethal damage are only 20% likely to work.
Seriously, what I'm about to write is a more subjective statement, but look at the entire emphasis of this spell. Its combat related. This spell is intended to summon partially real monsters to fight for you on your behalf, or to emulate spells that have some function in combat (like reproducing the mage armor effect. I'm not saying you couldn't fly around with some conjured creature, but if you're trying to do that for yourself.. it's going to be very hard because you know its not real (and therefore it might only work 20% of the time). The Core Premise isn't being contested, just this notion that you can fail a saving throw on an illusion you casted on yourself.
Now you've called for an end to personal deconstruction, and that's fine. I wasn't engaging in that last night.Dry humour maybe. Magicdealer is a fine fellow who sincerely believes in what's he's saying. I might have been tongue-in-cheek but I wasn't attacking him.
In any case, you won't have to worry about me any longer. I've made my case, and I'm done. Getting a reply from Paizo takes a long time, but I wish you the best. In the meantime, I sincerely believe I have answered this correctly.
7)
I don't think you can use any of the core book shadow spells to duplicate create food and water since it's a cleric spell.
9) Is the shades spell limited to just sorcerer/wizard spells of the creation/summoning subschools like its predecessors? Or can it actually duplicate such things as healing and teleportation spells from other classes? Its wording has a distinct lack of similarity to its weaker cousins where class limitations and subschools are concerned.
Now, just a regular illusion of a wall of ice, I think having a character run through it and assuming that the characters know each other well would be proof.
What of the earlier assertion that the auto-disbelief rule didn't apply to shadow spells since they are in fact, real (if only in part)?
Also, in order to help with question #9, I have compiled a list of all the spells that shadow magic can duplicate. Those spells with an asterisk may be debatable.
.
.
Acid arrow
Acid splash
Black tentacles
Fog cloud
Glitterdust
Grease
Mage armor
Minor creation
Mount
Obscuring mist
Phantom steed
Secure shelter
Sepia snake sigil
Sleet storm
Solid fog
Stinking cloud
Summon monster I – IV
Summon swarm
Unseen servant
Web
(as shadow conjuration, plus…)
Acid fog
Cloudkill
Mage’s faithful hound
Major creation
Secret chest
Summon monster V - VI
Wall of iron
Wall of stone
(as greater shadow conjuration, plus…)
Breath of Life*
Create food and water*
Creeping doom*
Cure light / moderate / serious / critical wounds*
Delay poison*
Dimension door*
Fire seeds*
Greater planar ally*
Greater planar binding*
Greater restoration*
Greater teleport*
Heal mount*
Heal*
Hero’s feast*
Incendiary cloud
Insect plague*
Instant Summons
Lesser planar ally*
Lesser planar binding*
Lesser restoration*
Mage’s magnificent mansion
Mass cure light / moderate / serious / critical wounds*
Maze*
Neutralize poison*
Phase door
Planar ally*
Planar binding*
Plane shift*
Raise dead*
Refuge*
Regenerate*
Remove blindness / deafness*
Remove disease*
Remove paralysis*
Restoration*
Resurrection*
Stabilize*
Summon instrument*
Summon monster VII - IX
Summon nature’s ally I – IX
Teleport object*
Teleport*
Transport via plants*
Trap the soul
Tree stride*
Wall of thorns*
Word of recall*
* Not a sorcerer or wizard spell or not of the creation or summoning subschools.
Burning hands
Continual flame
Dancing lights
Darkness
Daylight
Fire shield
Fireball
Flaming sphere
Flare
Floating disk
Gust of wind
Ice storm
Light
Lightning bolt
Magic missile
Ray of frost
Resilient sphere
Scorching ray
Shatter
Shocking grasp
Shout
Tiny hut
Wall of fire
Wall of ice
Wind wall
(as shadow evocation, plus…)
Chain lightning
Cone of cold
Contingency
Delayed blast fireball
Force cage
Forceful hand
Freezing sphere
Grasping hand
Interposing hand
Mage’s sword
Prismatic spray
Sending
Wall of force
|
|
Double check my post, I mentioned both shadow spells and regular illusion spells. The section you quoted was from the regular illusion stuff.
If it were a shadow spell, then the wall of ice would have been 1/5 there, which means the player would have still had some ice to chip through and been unable to just run through it.
Just a thought...can a shadow evocation spell used for a spell with the [light] descriptor be used to counter or dispel a darkness spell of equal of lower level? It would be nonsenslessly hilarous :D
Using one's power over shadow to dispel shadow created by another?
Sounds like a great display of magical strength.