Request for Jason - Please clarify the Shades spell!

[SolitonMan]

Sorry to post about this again, but honestly, it's driving me batty. In an earlier thread I suggested three possible re-wordings to clarify exactly how Shades should work, and if any one of these is on the mark, I'd appreciate having it pointed out, or else another explanation entirely. But in any case, I find the current wording of Shades in the PRD to be more ambiguous than is necessary:

(1) [Shades is Shadow Conjuration for sorcerer/wizard spells of 8th level or lower] - "This spell functions like shadow conjuration, except that it duplicates any sorcerer or wizard conjuration (summoning) or conjuration (creation) spell of 8th level or lower. The illusory conjurations created deal four-fifths (80%) damage to nonbelievers, and non-damaging effects are 80% likely to work against nonbelievers."

(2) [Shades is Shadow Conjuration with subschool limitations removed] - "This spell functions like shadow conjuration, except that it duplicates any sorcerer or wizard conjuration spell of 8th level or lower. Unlike shadow conjuration, shades is not limited to the creation and summoning subschools of conjuration. Any sorcerer or wizard conjuration spell of 8th level or lower may be duplicated.

The illusory conjurations created deal four-fifths (80%) damage to nonbelievers, and non-damaging effects are 80% likely to work against nonbelievers."

(3) [Shades duplicates any conjuration of 8th level or lower] - "This spell functions like shadow conjuration with the following exceptions: the duplicated spells are not limited by subschool, the duplicated spells are not limited to conjuration spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list and may in fact duplicate ANY conjuration spell, and the level limit for duplicated spells is 8th.

The illusory conjurations created deal four-fifths (80%) damage to nonbelievers, and non-damaging effects are 80% likely to work against nonbelievers."

It would really be personally helpful if the designer could clarify his intent. Thanks in advance for your help! :)

[David Thomassen]

Shades
Shades

School illusion (shadow); Level sorcerer/wizard 9

This spell functions like shadow conjuration, except that it mimics conjuration spells of 8th level or lower. The illusory conjurations created deal four-fifths (80%) damage to nonbelievers, and nondamaging effects are 80% likely to work against nonbelievers.

So as written, Option 2 is correct. It can mimic any Conjuration spell of 8th Level or below, not limited to creation or summoning subschools.

[SolitonMan]

David Thomassen wrote:

Shades

Shades

School illusion (shadow); Level sorcerer/wizard 9

This spell functions like shadow conjuration, except that it mimics conjuration spells of 8th level or lower. The illusory conjurations created deal four-fifths (80%) damage to nonbelievers, and nondamaging effects are 80% likely to work against nonbelievers.

So as written, Option 2 is correct. It can mimic any Conjuration spell of 8th Level or below, not limited to creation or summoning subschools.

Hi David, thanks for replying. I appreciate the response. :)

However, I don't believe that your conclusion is inescapable. By concluding that the creation and summoning subschool limitations are removed because they are not explicitly spelled out in the spell description, can you not then also conclude that the spells aren't limited to the sorcerer/wizard spell list since that too is not explicitly spelled out?

This conversation has been going on for years (from 3.5 and now into PFRPG), and never with any final word from someone who has actually written the rules (at least that I've seen, though it's entirely possible I've missed something somewhere). So that's why I asked for clarification from Jason in my thread title. For me, no one else has the "authority" (if you will) to state the intent of the spell. All we can do is reach conclusions that are based on the RAW interpretation - and the fact that there IS room for interpretation is fundamentally why I ask for clarification in the first place.

C'mon Jason! :) Help a guy out...

[Kryzbyn]

This is what you cast when your future is so bright.

[Ravingdork]

Made this list a long time ago for ease of reference. Kind of puts things into perspective.

SHADOW CONJURATION
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

GREATER SHADOW CONJURATION
(as shadow conjuration, plus…)
Acid fog
Cloudkill
Mage’s faithful hound
Major creation
Secret chest
Summon Monster V - VI
Wall of iron
Web wall of stone

SHADES
(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/wizard spell or else not of the creation or summoning subschools.

SHADOW EVOCATION
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

GREATER SHADOW EVOCATION
(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

And that's just the core spells.

[Sandbox]

Dot...it is a 9th level spell...

[Evil Lincoln]

OP, in future, could you please refrain from name-dropping Jason or the devs when asking a question?

I don't know why, but it bothers me. There are more devs than just Jason who can give an official answer, there's more than one Jason who might answer you, and there are often non-dev forumites who can get you the official answer if it exists.

Sorry for the rant, I know you're probably unaware that it bothers anyone.

[Bobson]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

OP, in future, could you please refrain from name-dropping Jason or the devs when asking a question?

I don't know why, but it bothers me. Also, there are more devs than just Jason who can give an official answer, there's more than one Jason who might answer you, and there are often non-dev forumites who can get you the official answer if it exists.

Sorry for the rant.

Not to mention that they rarely appear in threads calling for them (at least in the Rules section).

[Kryzbyn]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

OP, in future, could you please refrain from name-dropping Jason or the devs when asking a question?

I don't know why, but it bothers me. There are more devs than just Jason who can give an official answer, there's more than one Jason who might answer you, and there are often non-dev forumites who can get you the official answer if it exists.

Sorry for the rant, I know you're probably unaware that it bothers anyone.

Agreed. It smells of disrespect, intended or otherwise, with a splash of 'sense of entitlement'.

:P

[Evil Lincoln]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Agreed. It smells of disrespect, intended or otherwise, with a splash of 'sense of entitlement'.

Well, let's not all gang up on the guy. The Paizo staff are surprisingly accessible, it's not unreasonable to try and flag them down if you have a question. That was more of a suggestion for etiquette than a reprimand.

[SolitonMan]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

OP, in future, could you please refrain from name-dropping Jason or the devs when asking a question?

I don't know why, but it bothers me. There are more devs than just Jason who can give an official answer, there's more than one Jason who might answer you, and there are often non-dev forumites who can get you the official answer if it exists.

Sorry for the rant, I know you're probably unaware that it bothers anyone.

Agreed. It smells of disrespect, intended or otherwise, with a splash of 'sense of entitlement'.

:P

Please accept my apology, no offense was intended. I cited Jason because when I looked at the credits in my Core Rulebook, I saw his name listed as Lead Designer. I'm not a frequent poster on these boards, so I'm not aware of any rules or etiquette related to such matters. I based my choice on the oft-repeated idea that Paizo is such a great game company because of the responsiveness of its employees, and because of their engagement on these boards. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

In any case, I'd still really appreciate it if someone with "authority" (whatever that may mean in this context) could give a definitive answer to the original question - exactly how should the Shades spell work?

[Kryzbyn]

Not jumping on anyone, just clarifying why it may have seemed off to you. Also wasn't entirely serious, hence the " :P "

OP you're fine. A lot of people call out the Devs, and for a lot less.

[LazarX]

I've always taken the shadow conjuration spell line to be analogues of either the Summon Monster spells or VISIBLE damaging conjuration effects. such as Black Tentacles. Not the healing or harm type spells which have no visual aspect to them.

[SolitonMan]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Not jumping on anyone, just clarifying why it may have seemed off to you. Also wasn't entirely serious, hence the " :P "

OP you're fine. A lot of people call out the Devs, and for a lot less.

:)

Cool, thanks man. I have to admit a I was bit worried...

[Evil Lincoln]

No apology necessary, but accepted with gratitude at any rate. Carry on. Hope you get the answer you're looking for.

For what it is worth, I believe that spells derived from other spells inherit their limitations unless explicitly declared otherwise. Therefore I would rule that it is option 1 from your OP, although my knowledge of the rules involved is sketchy at best.

[wraithstrike]

David Thomassen wrote:

Shades

Shades

School illusion (shadow); Level sorcerer/wizard 9

This spell functions like shadow conjuration, except that it mimics conjuration spells of 8th level or lower. The illusory conjurations created deal four-fifths (80%) damage to nonbelievers, and nondamaging effects are 80% likely to work against nonbelievers.

So as written, Option 2 is correct. It can mimic any Conjuration spell of 8th Level or below, not limited to creation or summoning subschools.

I agree with this one also, but I also hit the FAQ button.

[Jason Bulmahn]

I am going to look into adding this to the FAQ, but here are a few notes (subject to change).

1. It is not necessary to call me out by name to get my attention. I peruse the boards daily and while I may not take time to post, I do elevate issues for the rules team to discuss.

2. As for this particular issue, I think the intent here of this spell was to keep the subschool limitations. Without them, this spell is probably too good, seeing as its 80% limitation would not really apply (or would have to be creatively applied) to a number of spells outside the subschool limitation. For now, that is the way I would play it, and that is certainly the way I am leaning toward with any clarification.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

[Ravingdork]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I am going to look into adding this to the FAQ, but here are a few notes (subject to change).

1. It is not necessary to call me out by name to get my attention. I peruse the boards daily and while I may not take time to post, I do elevate issues for the rules team to discuss.

2. As for this particular issue, I think the intent here of this spell was to keep the subschool limitations. Without them, this spell is probably too good, seeing as its 80% limitation would not really apply (or would have to be creatively applied) to a number of spells outside the subschool limitation. For now, that is the way I would play it, and that is certainly the way I am leaning toward with any clarification.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I eagerly await the new FAQ entry.

Also, many of the spells WITHIN the subschool limitations force people to "creatively apply" these shadow spell limitations.

It's one of the weird ones right up there with awaken, reincarnate, and simulacrum.

[Hobbun]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I peruse the boards daily and while I may not take time to post, I do elevate issues for the rules team to discuss.

Any chance on that list of rules issues that have been 'elevated'?

:D

[wraithstrike]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I am going to look into adding this to the FAQ, but here are a few notes (subject to change).

1. It is not necessary to call me out by name to get my attention. I peruse the boards daily and while I may not take time to post, I do elevate issues for the rules team to discuss.

........
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

+1, and for those who read this and try to call SKR out instead he made a similar statement not too long ago.

[Jeremiziah]

Hobbun wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I peruse the boards daily and while I may not take time to post, I do elevate issues for the rules team to discuss.

Any chance on that list of rules issues that have been 'elevated'?

:D

If he posts a list, it's going to start off a 13 thread crapstorm of arguing about what the changes will be, whether or not they will be the right changes, etc. I'd prefer that not happen, personally.

[wraithstrike]

Jeremiziah wrote:

Hobbun wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I peruse the boards daily and while I may not take time to post, I do elevate issues for the rules team to discuss.

Any chance on that list of rules issues that have been 'elevated'?

:D

If he posts a list, it's going to start off a 13 thread crapstorm of arguing about what the changes will be, whether or not they will be the right changes, etc. I'd prefer that not happen, personally.

True.

poster 1:Why isn't X a priority? It didn't even make the list, and Z should be ahead of of Y.
poster 2: X is not even open to discussion. It is definitely clear.

Then there is an argument about why X is not clear since it is not written in legalese, along with any other rules questions that may or may not be listed.

[Ravingdork]

Nothing reveals true human nature quite like the internet.

[Abraham spalding]

Ravingdork wrote:

Nothing reveals true human nature quite like the internet.

Or obscures it -- you really want to see the variety and depth of human nature? Be at a catastrophe.

[SolitonMan]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I am going to look into adding this to the FAQ, but here are a few notes (subject to change).

1. It is not necessary to call me out by name to get my attention. I peruse the boards daily and while I may not take time to post, I do elevate issues for the rules team to discuss.

2. As for this particular issue, I think the intent here of this spell was to keep the subschool limitations. Without them, this spell is probably too good, seeing as its 80% limitation would not really apply (or would have to be creatively applied) to a number of spells outside the subschool limitation. For now, that is the way I would play it, and that is certainly the way I am leaning toward with any clarification.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Thank you for taking the time to comment Jas- er, unnamed Lead Designer of my currently favorite RPG. ;)

In all seriousness, I do appreciate you taking the time to respond. I'll be looking forward to a final ruling, but I agree with your assessment. If you look at the 3.5 PHB, it seems like the wording for Shades that was chosen was done with the aim of limiting typespace. The strict interpretation is the one I'll be using.

[Jason Bulmahn]

Hobbun wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I peruse the boards daily and while I may not take time to post, I do elevate issues for the rules team to discuss.

Any chance on that list of rules issues that have been 'elevated'?

:D

No.

There is no need to start up a meta-discussion about our internal process here. Move along folks.. move along.

Jason Bulmahn
Busy Guy

[Hobbun]

Didn’t realize my post would continue to stir up any discussion, nevermind a response from Jason.

I was only kidding from my request, anyways. Hence the smiley face-grin.

[LazarX]

Ravingdork wrote:

Nothing reveals true human nature quite like the internet.

It doesn't reveal human nature, it's more like a warped funhouse mirror of it.

[ShadowcatX]

The internet allows humans to be who we want to be without societal limitations and with little to no threat of backlash, but its not a feature specific to the internet, instead its just a function of anonymity. At a catastrophe people are forced outside of their comfort zone and generally ignore societal limitations along with varying degrees of possible backlash but there's much more going on than is going on in a normal situation so there's more confounding variables. Both, however, are good for seeing "human nature" as IMO life itself is a confounding variable.

That's my 2 cents at least.

[MargarineMeadow]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I am going to look into adding this to the FAQ, but here are a few notes (subject to change).

…
2. As for this particular issue, I think the intent here of this spell was to keep the subschool limitations. Without them, this spell is probably too good, seeing as its 80% limitation would not really apply (or would have to be creatively applied) to a number of spells outside the subschool limitation. For now, that is the way I would play it, and that is certainly the way I am leaning toward with any clarification.

Does the lack of any FAQ or errata implemented throughout the entirety of PF1 imply that the rules team considered and rejected JB’s position in this spell?

[Azothath]

Shades:I9 spell. it IS a 9th level spell
google search "site:https://paizo.com/paizo/faq shades" yields nothing relevant.
There's nothing in PFS documentation on this Core Rulebook topic. Not surprising due to Spell Level and core assumption.
I'm sure you are aware that Paizo has stopped producing content (which would include FAQs, errata, etc) on PF1. It's a business decision and they have moved on.
Illusion school
A Paizo designer gave his opinion on how he'd run it in his home game.
Some others noted difficulties if you apply it to "all" conjurations. A Shadow Conjuration Chains of Light:C6 [good] springs to mind, rather opposites description wise.
IDK... the game uses a wide brush and assumes alot for high level games. The staff could have decided it was fairly obvious and didn't need an FAQ.

it's a 9th level spell. GMs are gonna have different views on exactly how that gets implemented. No need to put FAQ/errata just to have it criticized and then have pedantic questions about that. You have to trust your GM to do the right thing for their Home Game and Group of players.

d20 Shades spell. d20 Shadow Conjuration spell.

[MargarineMeadow]

Azothath wrote:

I'm sure you are aware that Paizo has stopped producing content (which would include FAQs, errata, etc) on PF1. It's a business decision and they have moved on.

Yes, that’s why I prefaced the question as I did. There is no FAQ nor will there be one, so we’re left with what comments there are in terms of “official” responses.

Azothath wrote:

A Paizo designer gave his opinion on how he'd run it in his home game.
…
The staff could have decided it was fairly obvious and didn't need an FAQ.

Official Paizo voices are generally granted some higher degree of authority, so JB’s opinion is one of the few sources of authority on this specific issue. Searching on the subject yesterday, I saw three different threads within the last two years which cited to this specific comment from JB; however, I think there’s a compelling argument to be made that the non-existence of a FAQ on the subject should be considered evidence that JB’s thoughts were in the minority. That’s what I’m looking for input on, whether you feel that the lack of any FAQ following this thread should carry evidentiary weight.

[Warped Savant]

From my understanding, if the FAQ team thought the thing being FAQed was specific enough as written, or if they preferred to leave it as "ask your GM and let them make a ruling," they often didn't spend the time to write up an official answer.

I wouldn't assume that just because there isn't an answer that means they disagreed with JB (or anyone else for that matter).

[AwesomenessDog]

MargarineMeadow wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I am going to look into adding this to the FAQ, but here are a few notes (subject to change).

…
2. As for this particular issue, I think the intent here of this spell was to keep the subschool limitations. Without them, this spell is probably too good, seeing as its 80% limitation would not really apply (or would have to be creatively applied) to a number of spells outside the subschool limitation. For now, that is the way I would play it, and that is certainly the way I am leaning toward with any clarification.

Does the lack of any FAQ or errata implemented throughout the entirety of PF1 imply that the rules team considered and rejected JB’s position in this spell?

No, you could write three core books worth of rules that *need* clarifications and FAQs that never got one despite being also clearly in the perception of the devs.

[Anguish]

AwesomenessDog wrote:

MargarineMeadow wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I am going to look into adding this to the FAQ, but here are a few notes (subject to change).

…
2. As for this particular issue, I think the intent here of this spell was to keep the subschool limitations. Without them, this spell is probably too good, seeing as its 80% limitation would not really apply (or would have to be creatively applied) to a number of spells outside the subschool limitation. For now, that is the way I would play it, and that is certainly the way I am leaning toward with any clarification.

Does the lack of any FAQ or errata implemented throughout the entirety of PF1 imply that the rules team considered and rejected JB’s position in this spell?

No, you could write three core books worth of rules that *need* clarifications and FAQs that never got one despite being also clearly in the perception of the devs.

This. The FAQ/errata/support team was understaffed, underresourced, and did the best they could with basically no time allocated to anything already printed.

[Azothath]

MargarineMeadow wrote:

Azothath wrote:

A Paizo designer gave his opinion on how he'd run it in his home game.

…
The staff could have decided it was fairly obvious and didn't need an FAQ.

Official Paizo voices are generally granted some higher degree of authority, so JB’s opinion is one of the few sources of authority on this specific issue. Searching on the subject yesterday, I saw three different threads within the last two years which cited to this specific comment from JB; however, I think there’s a compelling argument to be made that the non-existence of a FAQ on the subject should be considered evidence that JB’s thoughts were in the minority. That’s what I’m looking for input on, whether you feel that the lack of any FAQ following this thread should carry evidentiary weight.

The idea you could base some "official" argument for RAW around Designer comments created an issue in PFS I call the "Quote Wars" in an effort by players to force a particular GM decision. Finally Paizo & PFS had to come out and say that Designer's comments are their own and not official FAQs and such (but GMs should read and consider their comments). The designers are considered experienced gamers and are trying to be helpful. Readers should not saddle them with the responsibility of producing business decisions, FAQs, legal decisions, or "evidence" of some sort other than they had free time to respond to a post or comment on the topic and share their years of gaming wisdom with us.

so no. The authority lies with your GM and creates the wonders of individual games and "table variance". You are making what's called an Appeal to Authority and building some logic or emotional argument around that. Trying to reverse the relationship without using the contrapositive is a logical fallacy.

PFS created three main documents to cover their campaign; The Guide(basic campaign outline and directions), Additional Resources (defined what was IN or OUT), Campaign Clarifications (addressed many corner cases and things in finer detail). As this was an official Paizo campaign with years of play testing by thousands of players I advise people to use their rules as a simple baseline as most of the overpowered stuff is reviewed and dealt with in their documentation.

Recently we have had a poster(s) re-posting old designer comments. I assume they are generally clueless and/or trying to stir the pot/be a provocateur but they could be a spammer or JavaBot...