|
Shadow Evocation allows its caster to duplicate any sorcerer or wizard evocation spell of 4th level or lower. If one uses Shadow Evocation to duplicate the spell Detonate, does the caster get to disbelieve his own effect automatically (he 'knows', in the layman's sense, it's not real) or does he have to make a Will save?
You flood yourself with a potent surge of elemental energy.
One round after completing the casting of the spell, the energy explodes from your body.
When this spell creates the explosion of energy, choose one of the following four energy types: acid, cold, electricity, or fire. The explosion inflicts 1d8 points of damage of that energy type per caster level (maximum 10d8) to all creatures and unattended objects within 15 feet, and half that amount to targets past 15 feet but within 30 feet. You automatically take half damage from the explosion, without a saving throw, but any other energy resistance or energy immunity effects you may have in place can prevent or lessen this overflow damage caused by the explosion.
IE in the case of a Shadow Evocation mimicking Detonate, does the caster automatically take 1/5 of 1/2 the total damage, or have to make a Will save for this?
IMO, yes he would take reduced damage. You automatically disbelieve your own illusions.
IMO, yes he would take reduced damage. You automatically disbelieve your own illusions.
No such rule. It's a fair enough house rule, but as written, you are always allowed to fail any save voluntarily, including a save for a shadowy evocation illusion. Otherwise you would have to save normally. This is further exacerbated by the fact that illusion [shadow] spells actually are (partially) real; disbelieve all you want, that shadowy evocated fireball is still going to burn you.
The only rule I can find on this is in the magic section under Illusion and states:
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw.
Again, shadow subschool spells actually are real, and even if this clause does still apply, it's not automatic; the character doesn't need to make the save, but he can opt to if he likes (and can then opt to fail it).
Admittedly, there aren't many situations where you'd want to believe in your own non-harmless shadow evocation, but such situations could exist. For example, there's a 3.5 metamagic feat from Complete Arcane called Lord of the Uttercold that turns all of your cold damage spells into half cold, half negative energy. A lich could then cast an uttercold shadowy evocated energy substituted fireball such that he was in the blast radius, ignore the cold damage because he's immune, and be healed by the negative energy damage. If he auto-saved, he'd heal less, while if he willingly believes in his own spell, he heals for the full amount (especially as he can also voluntarily fail the Reflex save).
Page 211 of the core rule book, "A character faced with proof that an illusion is not real needs no saving throw." If you cast it, you have the most incontrovertible proof there is. You would take the reduced affect. Can you forgo the save you do not need to make?
Page 211 of the core rule book, "A character faced with proof that an illusion is not real needs no saving throw." If you cast it, you have the most incontrovertible proof there is. You would take the reduced affect. Can you forgo the save you do not need to make?
I already covered that in my post.
Your vagueness makes you seem more intelligent, which part?
Uh, all of it? The rules quote included? Seriously, try reading my post. Your post comes after mine, is a direct reply to mine, and yet quotes a rule that I already quoted and ignores my two points with regards to that rule. To repeat myself:
.
.
- Illusion (shadow) spells are actually real, and as such you cannot be presented with incontrovertible proof that they aren't real.
- Even ignoring that first point, the rule only states that you don't need to make a save, not that you automatically succeed at the save. Not needing to make a save is not the same thing as automatically passing the save. After all, you don't need to drive (or be driven) to work every day; you could walk, instead, even though that's likely not a very good choice. Same thing with this. You don't need to make the save, but you can choose to do so if you like.
1) Illusion (shadow) are partially real, which means they are mostly fake, and you know that, and you cannot not know it. Big difference than actually real.
2)It doesn't say "you don't need to make a saving throw" it says that it "needs no saving throw". Again, big difference. As a result, see point one.
1) Illusion (shadow) are partially real, which means they are mostly fake, and you know that, and you cannot not know it. Big difference than actually real.
Incorrect. The percentage of reality varies by spell. Some of them are 90% effective even on a successful Will save; that's hardly "mostly fake". Furthermore, the rules simply say that if you have proof that the spell is not real; that is impossible for shadow spells because even 1% real is enough to disprove that the effect isn't real. Someone who's saying "Ignore the fire! It's not real!" then diving through a shadowy evocated wall of fire will come through the other side with burning clothes and scorched skin, regardless of the result of their Will save. That's proof that the spell IS real.
2)It doesn't say "you don't need to make a saving throw" it says that it "needs no saving throw". Again, big difference. As a result, see point one.
"A person with a car needs not walk". Does this mean a person with a car cannot walk? That is your logic.
1)It is an illusion, even if partially fake, it is still fake. Therefore it is not real. That is the nature of illusion magic. Even you cannot argue that point.
2)I take it back, there is no intelligence. You are attacking my logic, which stats you have no proof of your own. Lets play pretend: A dinner is being thrown in your honor for knowing more about pathfinder than anyone. Would you rather the person at the podium say "A person I don't need to introduce" or "A person who needs no introduction". Do you now see the difference between "don't need" and "needs no".
1)It is an illusion, even if partially fake, it is still fake. Therefore it is not real. That is the nature of illusion magic. Even you cannot argue that point.
Yes, actually, I can, because the rules specifically state that shadow spells can be real:
A shadow spell creates something that is partially real from extradimensional energy. Such illusions can have real effects. Damage dealt by a shadow illusion is real.
If the effect is real and the damage is real, I submit that the spell is real.
2)I take it back, there is no intelligence. You are attacking my logic, which stats you have no proof of your own.
Can we please not pull out the passive-aggressive ad hominem attack shit? Seriously, there's no call for insulting me.
Also, proving your logic incorrect is proof of my own.
Lets play pretend: A dinner is being thrown in your honor for knowing more about pathfinder than anyone. Would you rather the person at the podium say "A person I don't need to introduce" or "A person who needs no introduction". Do you now see the difference between "don't need" and "needs no".
That is entirely, 100% entirely, beside the point. It's a total red herring. Regardless of whether the speaker said "don't need to introduce" or "needs no introduction", he could still introduce the person if he desired. This flies in the face of your assertion that "needs no saving throw" means "cannot opt to save".
I feel that you are insulting me by stating that everything I say is wrong, and stating it in such a way as to make me look the fool.
Allow me to rephrase my last statement: It can have real results, but it is still an illusion and is not real. That is what makes it an illusion, not an evocation or conjuration.
No, if you had proof, you would present it, not attack mine. As you did this last time.
It is not beside the point. They have a different intrinsic meaning.
Yes, I probably would allow a person to fail a save vs their own illusion, but I see that as a house rule. The way I read it, It seems as though you should automatically save.
I apologize for insulting you, but I get annoyed when people call me an idiot, even if not in so many words.
I feel that you are insulting me by stating that everything I say is wrong, and stating it in such a way as to make me look the fool.
Saying that you are wrong is not an insult. Nobody is correct 100% of the time, myself included. Making errors is a sign of growth and strength, not weakness, as long as one learns from the errors. Simply saying that you're incorrect isn't insulting. Now, if I'd said, "What a moron, you can't even read the text!" (and note, I did not say that and do not endorse it -- this is an example only), that would be an insult.
If you feel that I'm "stating it in such a way as to make [you] look the fool", then be assured, that's not my intent. Like I said, errors are positive signs, not negative ones; making errors doesn't make one a fool.
Allow me to rephrase my last statement: It can have real results, but it is still an illusion and is not real. That is what makes it an illusion, not an evocation or conjuration.
This is correct for everything except shadow subschool spells. All of the other subschools specifically mention that they are fake or "in the minds of the targets". Shadow spells specifically mention that they aren't. The Shadow subschool is only an Illusion subschool because it doesn't fit anywhere else (except perhaps Conjuration) and for legacy reasons. It's been argued many times that Shadow spells really shouldn't be illusions, precisely because they are real where every other illusion isn't.
No, if you had proof, you would present it, not attack mine. As you did this last time.
I did already present it; in fact, I presented it in my first post.
It is not beside the point. They have a different intrinsic meaning.
Actually, I'm fairly certain that, "A person I don't need to introduce," and, "A person who needs no introduction" have the exact same meaning. The second is the more common and formal way of saying it, but the two sentences do have the same meaning. However, I may be wrong; can you explain what you feel the difference is, and how it's relevant to the ability of the speaker to actually introduce the person if he wanted to?
A persons intent and what a person says can be two different things (RAI vs RAW, which as we have seen sparks a lot of arguments on the forums).
I agree that shadow shouldn't be a subschool of illusion, it should probably be evocation. The whole basis of my argument is that since it is a subschool of illusion, it itself is not real, even if the effects are.
The difference as I see it is "A person I don't need to introduce" makes the person sound insignificant, it's like an insult. "A person who needs no introduction" on the other hand seems means that you should already know them, they are that great/famous/etc.
Based on reading the shadow evocation spell and seeing under the saving throw--- WILL disbelief (if interacted with)
and with the fact the caster of such a spell is especially interactive with it
and that it is in the ILLUSION school and though shadow evocations are QUASI-REAL..they still are not REALLY REAL :P
and that the text reads "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." and once again it is not real...it is only quasi-real
I go with the caster automatically takes the quasi real damage and ignores the full illusary damage. ie 1/5 damage if it is just Shadow Evocation
Just my thoughts :)
Greg
This is correct for everything except shadow subschool spells. All of the other subschools specifically mention that they are fake or "in the minds of the targets". Shadow spells specifically mention that they aren't. The Shadow subschool is only an Illusion subschool because it doesn't fit anywhere else (except perhaps Conjuration) and for legacy reasons. It's been argued many times that Shadow spells really shouldn't be illusions, precisely because they are real where every other illusion isn't.
Wow, that is a really old arguement...straight from first edition AD&D when people played illusionists. Here are my thoughts on it. The saving throw listed in the spell is WILL disbelief. When that happens.. the illusion part of the spell is disbelieved. That part of the spell is "fake". ( though I just prefer to call it the illusion part) The other portion of the spell, the quasi-real part. That is too strong for simple disbelief. The universe is fooled into thinking it is real. Regular magic nastiness applies. The quasifire burns. That is the wimpy portion of the spell though.. and that is only 1/5th of the possible. But it goes through.
Anyway, that's me own interpretation.
Greg
The difference as I see it is "A person I don't need to introduce" makes the person sound insignificant, it's like an insult. "A person who needs no introduction" on the other hand seems means that you should already know them, they are that great/famous/etc.
OK, for the sake of discussion I'll give you that.
Now what does that have to do with the speaker's ability to introduce them? Remember, you're saying that "needs no saving throw" ("needs no introduction") means "cannot choose to make a saving throw" (which would carry through to "cannot choose to make an introduction for").
The whole basis of my argument is that since it is a subschool of illusion, it itself is not real, even if the effects are.
So the spell itself is fake? Does a fake spell still take up a spell slot? If not, I see gnomish illusionists becoming the new Pun-Pun...
Spells are their effects, for the purposes of this discussion. The spell itself (the arcane formula construct that provides and/or channels the magical energy to create an effect) is always "real" in as much as it matters. We're talking about the effects of the spell when we're talking about whether proof of unreality prevents saving throws. The effect of a mirage arcana isn't real; the caster of the spell knows this and thus needs not save against it. The effect of a shadowy evocated fireball is real -- you will always take fire damage from it if you're in its blast radius, barring Evasion or fire resistance.
and that it is in the ILLUSION school and though shadow evocations are QUASI-REAL..they still are not REALLY REAL :P
Again, the definition of the shadow subschool specifically states that the effects of shadow spells can be real and that damage from shadow spells IS real. Not quasi-real, real.
The difference as I see it is "A person I don't need to introduce" makes the person sound insignificant, it's like an insult. "A person who needs no introduction" on the other hand seems means that you should already know them, they are that great/famous/etc.
Totally off topic.. but heck.. I didn't start it :P
I think both statements are very influenced by what follows and the manner in which they are spoken.
For example
A person, I don't need to introduce.... my best man and best friend, Buddy Love!!!
or
A person, I don't need to introduce...cuz we all know that jerk anyway.
Just my off topic thoughts
Greg
My point was that they have different inherent meanings.
You cast a spell, that much is true, but you can take it one of two ways:
1) The fire explosion that you see is not real, the shadow attacks your mind making believe that you have been burned (like a hypochondriac believes they have an illness and their bodies develop actual symptoms), but this would make it more of a Phantasm(there's a thought...)
2) The fire explosion that you see is not real, the shadow attacks your body inflicting burns...where was I going with this one again?
EDIT: Didn't we do this with the monk, druid, pineapple thing?
I just see the shadow evocation as being part illusion and part manifested magic. Objects automatically ignore the illusion part because they do not have minds to trick. A person that makes their WILL save ignores the illusary part because it isn't real. The caster knows he is casting a powerful illusion.. so he also ignores the illusion part.
The "real" or "quasi-real" part cannot be disbelieved so the object, person making save, and the caster take damage.
I sorta immagine it as a framework of reality to hang the illusary part on. If you believe it all... then the powerful spell gets you.
If you disbelieve the illusary part...then only the frame it hangs on is gonna hurt you.. with the itty bitty part of magic.
Greg
PS: Zurai, I see where you are comin' from, I just disagree. :)
EDIT: added person making will save
|
|
Uh... wow. That got a lot more contentious than I thought it would.
Incorrect. The percentage of reality varies by spell. Some of them are 90% effective even on a successful Will save; that's hardly "mostly fake". Furthermore, the rules simply say that if you have proof that the spell is not real; that is impossible for shadow spells because even 1% real is enough to disprove that the effect isn't real.
Based on this I looked up the Greater version of Shadow Evocation, Zurai, and I think the text there puts a hole in your point.
This spell functions like shadow evocation, except that it enables you to create partially real, illusory versions of sorcerer or wizard evocation spells of 7th level or lower. If recognized as a greater shadow evocation, a damaging spell deals only three-fifths (60%) damage.
The caster is always going to recognize the evocation as a shadow evocation, because s/he's casting it. If s/he couldn't recognize spells as illusions while they're being cast, they couldn't very well direct a figment like a major image - because they'd forget it was a figment once it appeared. Thus only the 'real' portion (the percentage that's energy from the plane of shadow) of a shadow evocation applies to him/her. The stuff that's just fantasy can be disregarded.
Uh... wow. That got a lot more contentious than I thought it would.
WHAT the heck are you trying to say? Sheesh!
oops, I may have over reacted there. :P
The caster is always going to recognize the evocation as a shadow evocation, because s/he's casting it. If s/he couldn't recognize spells as illusions while they're being cast, they couldn't very well direct a figment like a major image - because they'd forget it was a figment once it appeared. Thus only the 'real' portion (the percentage that's energy from the plane of shadow) of a shadow evocation applies to him/her. The stuff that's just fantasy can be disregarded.
Awesome! Nicely stated.
Greg
I'm pretty sure in 3.5 the sage ruled that you automatically disbelieve the will (disbelief) spells you cast. There's not even a saving throw -- you automatically know an illusion you cast is an illusion. How could you not know that the spell is an illusion spell? How could you believe that what you cast is a full version of the spell? It's not in the rules because it's common sense.
The caster "KNOWS" the Shadow Evocation is in fact real. It can burn things. It can push things. The formula in his spell book stats that it channels real energies. He knows it is REAL.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the spell is not partially real. The argument stems from the will (disbelief) save. You know the spell is only partially real automatically -- you know what the spell is, you know the consequences of casting it. You shouldn't have to try to disbelieve that which you know automatically. . .
If casting shadow evocation -> detonate, you automatically disbelieve the spell, but you still take damage (although at a significantly reduced amount).
This is a can of worms I would be reluctant to open. What if I witness a wizard casting Shadow Evocation and make my spell craft check to identify it as such. Auto save? No save neccessary at all?
This walks a fine line towards. Spellcraft = Immunity to illusions school.
No, it means spellcraft = strong defense against spamming illusions without consequences.
Don't expect to cast a major image of a dragon in front of a spellcaster and *not* have the spellcaster auto-save against it. Cast major image -> dragon appears -> auto-disbelief (duh!) -> communicates it to his party as a free action which doesn't even have to be on his turn -> party gets auto-save with a +4 bonus.
Casting a silent major image while invisible means a spellcaster _typically_ won't see any components of the spell (including the focus component, which you really can't get rid of, even with Eschew Materials). So you can get a major image off in combat against a spellcaster. Another solution is to precast the major image so the spellcaster can't observe the spell's components.
Knowing a shadow evocation is coming reduces the damage, but it doesn't completely make you immune. Some spells are good against casters and some aren't. This spell clearly isn't good if you can identify the spell as it is being cast. Now, a spell-like ability of shadow evocation (no components) can be pretty effective. . .
The point of the illusion spells (particularly figments) is to be sneaky. If you're not sneaky, the spells shouldn't be as effective. That's why the illusionist playstyle has always been a challenge.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Casters arent the only class that can take Spellcraft. Anyone can put ranks into it. If Spellcraft = Auto disbelieve illusions, it quickly climbs to the top of the chart as one of the best skills out there.
And we are not just talking Major Image. What about Phantasmal Killer? The entire Shadow Line? Weird? Any illusion spell cast in combat that allows a save to disbelieve suddenly become, I'm immune and my party automatically gets a save at +4 bonus.
This problem isn't new to Pathfinder. The 3.X mechanics for disbelief saves and spellcraft were always hotly debated.
Basically you're at the mercy of the GM. The way it is written (very vaguely), it could be interpreted several ways. . .
1) I know that caster guy cast phantasmal killer due to spellcraft. I know it's not really "the most fearsome creature imaginable" -- thus I should immediately pass the disbelief save. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. The spell creates something that isn't the most fearsome creature imaginable -- thus, it is not real. The spell created the effect. The illusion spell created an effect that is not real. The spellcraft check should serve as proof.
2) I know that caster guy cast phantasmal killer due to spellcraft. I know it's not really "the most fearsome creature imaginable". . . but maybe my own senses/fears overwhelm my sense of logic. Thus I need to make a disbelief save. Even though I know it's not real (by virtue of being a spell), maybe my mind gets fooled anyway. The spellcraft check, although true information, is not "proof" that an illusion isn't real.
3) Same as 2, but with a bonus on my disbelief saving throw. I know it's not real. . . thus I can mentally prepare for it slightly. No written rules apply here, but it seems the most "fair" route.
I would go with number 3 personally.