[APG] Shadow Projection-Can you cast spells?

[FiddlersGreen]

The spell description for Shadow Projection in the APG is notably silent on this issue. So the question is, can your projected shadow cast spells?

[stuart haffenden]

The spell lists the abilities that you gain. It says nothing about losing any abilities so I would say yes you can cast spells.

[Edit] I may be wrong though!

[pad300]

Bumpage, as I want to see other peoples opinions.

[Dilvish the Danged]

This is pure opinion, not rules, but I intend to treat it like the gaseous form spell, meaning that you are unable to work any of the components- verbal, somatic, material or foci. With feats like silent spell, still spell, and eschew components, you would still be able to cast.

[Carpy DM]

As far as I can tell, it animates your shadow. Your shadow is not you (the text makes this distinction a couple of times, in fact, though never explicitly), and has none of your class abilities, spells, or anything else. It's just a shadow, and not even a particularly good one, since it can't create spawn.

[stuart haffenden]

Shadows don't have any listed languages although you could argue that you're not a real shadow, you just look like one.

Polymorph says that you need to make the Verbal, Somatic etc. elements and I think Shadows can certainly gesture [somatic].

Technically you would need Eschew Components as your gear would meld into your new form but many DM's don't even track inexpensive material components so that's kind of open there.

It's a tricky one

Can any Paizo peeps give us a ruling?

[pad300]

stuart haffenden wrote:

Shadows don't have any listed languages although you could argue that you're not a real shadow, you just look like one.

Polymorph says that you need to make the Verbal, Somatic etc. elements and I think Shadows can certainly gesture [somatic].

Technically you would need Eschew Components as your gear would meld into your new form but many DM's don't even track inexpensive material components so that's kind of open there.

It's a tricky one

Can any Paizo peeps give us a ruling?

I don't find the language entry argument particularly convincing; it appears to be tied to intelligence.

1) No languages obviously doesn't mean silent; see for example the dog entry. 2) Intelligent dogs eg Hellhounds, Yeth Hounds, have language entries but specifically say they can't talk. 3) Ravens have no language entry (and int of 2), but when they become intelligent familiars (int 6 +) they can talk. 4) Looking to the real world, parrots can talk, but wouldn't (shouldn't) have a language entry - they don't understand the sounds they are making as communications with specific meanings.

Shadows do have a statted INT of 6, but I never quite understood how that was supposed to make sense - the description is "The shadow is an undead horror, and as such has no goals or outwardly visible motivations other than to sap life and vitality from living beings." That suggest animalistic/non-intelligent predator to me; they are almost incorporeal skeletons.

[0gre]

The bigger point about language is whether a shadow is even capable of speach. Can they even make noise to make the verbal components of a spell? A parrot has physical vocal cords. A shadow has no physiology, it is arguably 2 dimensional.

[pad300]

0gre wrote:

The bigger point about language is whether a shadow is even capable of speach. Can they even make noise to make the verbal components of a spell? A parrot has physical vocal cords. A shadow has no physiology, it is arguably 2 dimensional.

I've had ghosts chucking spells at my head in game, they don't have physical vocal cords either. Even if a shadow isn't capable of making noise, finally a decent use for Silent Spell...

[Dilvish the Danged]

Shadows are just silhouettes and don't have discernable facial features- like a mouth- the way ghosts, wraiths and spectres do. I think it's legitimate to question whether a shadow can speak.

I never gave it much thought before, but a shadow doesn't strike me as the sort of creature that would ever say anything.

[FiddlersGreen]

Dilvish the Danged wrote:

Shadows are just silhouettes and don't have discernable facial features- like a mouth- the way ghosts, wraiths and spectres do. I think it's legitimate to question whether a shadow can speak.

I never gave it much thought before, but a shadow doesn't strike me as the sort of creature that would ever say anything.

Matchbox 20 might disagree.

"All day, staring at the ceiling making friends with shadows on my wall."

Can't really make friends with someone without speaking with them. =p

[WWWW]

Dilvish the Danged wrote:

Shadows are just silhouettes and don't have discernable facial features- like a mouth- the way ghosts, wraiths and spectres do. I think it's legitimate to question whether a shadow can speak.

I never gave it much thought before, but a shadow doesn't strike me as the sort of creature that would ever say anything.

What if they are in profile.

[stuart haffenden]

Amusing though this is, it isn't getting us any nearer an answer!

[pad300]

stuart haffenden wrote:

Amusing though this is, it isn't getting us any nearer an answer!

True enough. The question has been marked for the FAQ, I believe, and Paizo will get to it in due time. Meanwhile, if I was DM'ing I'd rule against. RAW I would believe the user could cast. However, the spell is significantly overpowered if this is the case. Hell, it may be breakable anyway as a wand spell for a rogue to use with UMD...

[Loengrin]

stuart haffenden wrote:

Amusing though this is, it isn't getting us any nearer an answer!

I've looked in all the books I've got (even 2nd edition one :p ) and have't a clue if planof shadow people can talk... They can move so somatic is not a problem but can they talk ?

Very good question...

[Devilkiller]

The fact that shadows have sufficient Intelligence for speech but still don't have a Language entry implies to me that they can't talk. I could imagine somebody ruling otherwise though. The projected shadow does seem to get your mind.

APG wrote:

you infuse your life force and psyche into your shadow

Anyhow, Sorcerers would be better prepared to cast spells as Shadows due to Eschew Materials. I also just saw this in the "incorporeal" section of the monster rules.

SRD wrote:

An incorporeal creature has no natural armor bonus but has a deflection bonus equal to its Charisma bonus (always at least +1, even if the creature's Charisma score does not normally provide a bonus).

Wow, that's a pretty nice bonus for most Sorcerers.

Pad300 mentioned a Rogue using Shadow Projection via wand. I'd think most Rogues would still prefer the similarly priced Wand of Greater Invisibility. A Shadow doesn't do any hit point damage, so I don't think a Shadow Rogue would get sneak attack damage. I suppose that buying a pair of ghost touch short swords could solve this problem though, and the other benefits of the spell are pretty strong even if you aren't using the incorporeal touch.

[Ambrus]

Has any sort of answer or general consensus arisen for this question yet?

[Starglim]

Ambrus wrote:

Has any sort of answer or general consensus arisen for this question yet?

I don't know if this is a consensus, but I might sum up (and agree with) the above posts to say the shadow:

• retains the caster's mind and class abilities
  
• can make somatic gestures
  
• probably can't speak
  
• doesn't have access to material components as they merge into the shadow form.
  

So it can cast spells with Somatic components only.

[Ambrus]

For what it's worth, the 3.5 SRD on shadows mentions this: "Shadows cannot speak intelligibly." Interestingly, the shadow monster class in Savage Species grants them an automatic language (common). So it would seem that, in 3.X, most shadows, while able to vocalize some sounds, weren't able to speak intelligibly. But player character shadows, being a step above their common brethren, were somehow able to speak normally.

Might this somehow influence the discussion here? Alternatively might one of the developers chime in to settle the issue?

[Magicdealer]

And the shadow dancer's summoned shadow can communicate intelligibly with him/her.

[Ambrus]

Magicdealer wrote:

And the shadow dancer's summoned shadow can communicate intelligibly with him/her.

So the take away from this is that shadows can't speak unless they're working alongside the PCs rather than against them?

[Ambrus]

Interestingly, James Jacobs is of the opinion that shadows are supposed to speak common and that that omission from their stat block is merely an error.

[Magicdealer]

The takeaway is whatever you want to take away from it :p

[Interzone]

I would still like further clarification on this spell

[Kalyth]

For what its worth.

Project Image (Bard: 6th, Wizard: 7th) specifically states you can cast spells through the image.

Seems like a spell 3 levels lower really shouldnt provide most of the benefits of a spell 3 levels higher. Heck you can even attack creatures with a strength drain touch in Shadow Projection.

[Irritated Shadow Projector]

Almost one and half years have passed, is there any hope for some clarification in this matter?
I would really like to play my Fetchling Umbral-blooded Sorcerer soon.

[Irritated Shadow Projector]

Bump.

[Irritated Shadow Projector]

Bump again.

[Ambrus]

Irritated Shadow Projector wrote:

Almost one and half years have passed, is there any hope for some clarification in this matter?

I believe you answered your own question. Still, I admire your determination to get an answer. Good luck.

[Irritated Shadow Projector]

Aaaaaaand bump.

[Dennis Baker]

A sock puppet for a FAQ request? Playing with fire there.

[Irritated Shadow Projector]

Dennis Baker wrote:

A sock puppet for a FAQ request? Playing with fire there.

A sock puppet? Playing with fire? I don't understand. What do you mean?

This is rather cryptic.

[Ambrus]

Irritated Shadow Projector wrote:

This is rather cryptic.

I'm assume that Dennis is referring to the fact that you've created a forum profile persona dedicated solely to getting an official response to your spell question and your repeated bumping and clicking FAQ on each of your posts is liable to attracted undesired Paizo attention rather than net you the clarifications you so desperately desire. I'm just guessing though.

[Dennis Baker]

Exactly.

[Irritated Shadow Projector]

Ambrus wrote:

Irritated Shadow Projector wrote:

This is rather cryptic.

I'm assume that Dennis is referring to the fact that you've created a forum profile persona dedicated solely to getting an official response to your spell question and your repeated bumping and clicking FAQ on each of your posts is liable to attracted undesired Paizo attention rather than net you the clarifications you so desperately desire. I'm just guessing though.

So just coming here to get an official answer to my rules question (with no other option existing) is wrong?

Or bumping and flagging a thread that hasn't been resolved in over 1,5 years, and clearly has escaped official attention?
Or basing my alias on the reason that brought me here instead of a random fantasy name or pop-cultural reference, and keeping it for humorous reasons?
But thanks for keeping this thread alive.

Also bump.

[adrem]

whit this spell, if I've got bab 6/1, could I do 2 drain attack?

and my equipment vanish? or is part of my shadow?

[Warsor]

I'm interested in an answer to this as well. If the developer who FAQs this could also clarify if you use the shadows BAB as an undead type of your Hit dice that would be wonderful too.

[Flashohol]

Im thinking of giving a dragon this spell and would like to know if the str. Damage touch is its own attack or if he can do it with all of its natural attacks and if damage taken in this form transferes to the real body?

[Ambrus]

Irritated Shadow Projector wrote:

a thread that hasn't been resolved in over 1,5 years, and clearly has escaped official attention?

I'm fairly certain that someone or other at Paizo is aware of this thread and the unresolved questions regarding this spell. It, like many other rules issues, is something they have chosen to ignore. For whatever reason they seem to don't believe the issue requires their attention or are merely content to let players and GMs resolve the spell's shortcomings on their own.

Unfortunate, but there it is.

[Azothath]

well - my 2¢...
incorporeal doesn't mean they can't talk
undead doesn't mean they can't talk

so look at other examples for guidance;

Azata, Ghaele - in Light Form they cannot cast spells BUT can use spell like... hmmm... seems like a specific condition. Not undead.

Demon, Shadow - has Spell-Like Abilities usable while incorporeal. Not undead.

Ghost - Special Attacks (spellcasting) are retained. Frightful Moan, so clearly ghosts can talk IF they have the INT to do so...
Ghosts have Spellcraft as a class skill. Lang: Common.
Ghosts can talk.

Shadow - does not say they are silent. Stealth +8.

Shadow, Greater - Stealth +20. Acts as leader to other Shadows. no language listed.

Spectre - does not say they are silent, but has a Stealth skill +14, Intimidate +13. Evil historians and necromancers try to ally with spectres for the knowledge they had in life and retain in undeath.
Lang: Common.
Spectres can talk.

Wraith - Lang: Common and Infernal.
Wraiths can talk.

going back to 3.5

Shadows cannot speak intelligibly. INT6.
Clearly this implies that they could speak IF they had the intelligence to do so.

The ability of a Shadow to speak boils down to this;

(Pro) If Greater Shadows act as leaders, then you would assume that they can communicate with their minions. This would clearly imply that shadows can talk and that verbal components of spells are possible. Ghost, Spectre, and Wraith (all incorporeal undead) and 3.5 support this opinion.

(Con) Since there is no Language Listing for Shadows or Greater shadows, rejecting 3.5 (the lack of a Language entry does not exclude 3.5 rules), they are mute and must mime instructions. Their bonus to Stealth partially comes from their silence. Other incorporeal undead (have language entries) and 3.5 rules do not support this opinion.

Clearly the Pro is the stronger argument.

[Azothath]

Azothath wrote:

...
Clearly the Pro is the stronger argument

(for being able to speak)

So... back to the original question, spellcasting for Shadows.

Magic Jar spell seems most appropriate to support that the casting wizard has knowledge of his spells and takes the memorizations with him (class abilities) when he pours his "psyche" into the shadow. I don't know that many will disagree with this.

Verbal - yes, see above.

Somatic - yes - shadow arms and legs, as your basic form (humanoid) stays the same. As you can cast underwater (as a human), this means you don't have to move air around or some other silly requirement so being a shadow should not be an impediment to making gestures. I'll also point out that shadows are not flat 2 dimensional things, more 3 dimensional, as they can form around the curvy bits of rocks and non-flat shapes. We'll talk topology in another thread.

Material - hmmmm... I'd say no. The one exception being spells that require only shadow/shadowstuff as material components. The logic is simple. A shadow of a component is not the actual component which is what the spell description calls for. Incorporeals have a real problem carrying about solid corporeal objects (components). You could have someone carry he components and take the 50% miss chance (in reverse) to actually grab the solid item and use it. Otherwise Eschew Material Components or a pouch with Ghost Touch & GM approval would be the way to go. The feat is probably the best way to go. It will also work with Magic Jar etc.

Magic Items - again, following the Material Component line and Magic Jar, no. An item would require Ghost Touch for an incorporeal to use them (consistently). So things to Ghost Touch: Handy Haversack, Cloaks of protection, bracers, weapons(if they do great damage as your touch attack is hard to beat), etc.

Mage Armor and Shield you can just cast while in Shadow form. Spells cast on your body stay with the body, curses and such follow you. Mind Blank spell should follow your mind, but True Seeing (cast on the eyes) probably wouldn't. The easiest thing to do to clear confusion is just cast the spell AFTER casting Shadow Projection.

Spells that have a target of living creature won't work as you are an undead type. Conversely - those that affect undead may affect you.

In general, you will have a hard time affecting anything corporeal. You will need others to carry your body and gear, move objects, etc. Your best bet will be Mage Hand, Unseen Servant, or tag-along lackey. Remember if you opt for the reverse 50%(rather than miss - you "hit") picking up something is a move equivalent action so you'll only have a standard action left.

ummm... and lastly, while this spell was clearly intended for information gathering and necromantic coolness - don't infiltrate a temple with clerics... it'll just get ugly as you will have given the clerics a new chew toy.

[Majuba]

Edit: James Jacobs clarified the spell Here. Which works for me - it seemed very overpowered, but I'd come to expect that.

Wow, I saw this spell used at PaizoCon but hadn't actually read it. The player there convinced the GM he could use scrolls somehow (which now seems ridiculous reading the description).

The intent of the spell seems rather clear. A cross between a "Undead Body" spell and Project Image, but with worse side effects than the latter. As a 4th level sorcerer/wizard spell that does not specifically discount any sort of casting (unlike Gaseous Form), the normal rules should apply.

Cast Spells - certainly, with Eschew Materials. Silent and Still not required, as incorporeal creatures are not silent. Material components must be manipulated, not simply on your person, to be used (except for wild-shaped Druids with Natural Spell).

Use Items - not unless they are ghost touch. An incorporeal creature cannot pickup physical objects, even magical ones, not even with "50% miss chance". Interestingly, the spell does not say you lose your strength score, so a ghost touch weapon could actually be wielded rather well. {new idea for someone: TWF rogue with two +1, ghost touch weapons, using UMD to cast this spell}.

For PFS purposes, this is an evil spell, and per version 4.2 of the guide, that can have an impact at GM discretion. Personally, I see this as evil to yourself more than anything else, but that strength damage ability certainly qualifies towards it. Also for PFS purposes, a scroll of this is purchasable for 2 PA.

[james maissen]

FiddlersGreen wrote:

The spell description for Shadow Projection in the APG is notably silent on this issue. So the question is, can your projected shadow cast spells?

Don't see why not.

If there is something preventing it, then honestly this is something worth spelling out (say like gaseous form spells out the restrictions).

Certainly as others have said you don't have a spell component pouch with you, so you'll want eschew materials or to watch your spells carefully.

-James

[Azothath]

the spell is clarified here by James Jacobs;
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz2u4o&page=420?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Que stions-Here#20982

Intent and RAW converge somewhere... lol

[james maissen]

Azothath wrote:

the spell is clarified here by James Jacobs;

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz2u4o&page=420?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Que stions-Here#20982

Intent and RAW converge somewhere... lol

And James is a great guy (and made a wonderful choice in first names), but nowhere do I see spelled out that you keep your skills but somehow lose your feats as he seems to say.

Perhaps the intent of the spell was to use it as a scout, just as the intent of the mount spell was to use it as a mount. But that doesn't mean that a summoned mount can't trigger a trap, etc.

As I read the spell you maintain your BAB, saves, skills (though you gain the shadow's racial stealth bonus), feats, class skills and abilities. You are in essence possessing a shadow.

-James