Shadow Conjuration and Evocation

[Kim Hokkanen]

There are several threads on this already. However, there really are no clear answers provided in any of them.

Focus on this discussion is on more complex uses of the spell - damaging spells are pretty well covered by the RAW.

Mount and Phantom steed provide for transport, and therefore are useless as Shadow versions unless they actually work as described in their spell descriptions. Naturally their AC and HP is lessened, but otherwise they are just as able to provide transport as their "real" versions.

Shadow Grease's chance to work is reduced to appropriate percentage if disbelieved.

Shadow Obscuring Mist would work like Shadow Grease.

Regarding Shadow Mage Armor I agree that it's the attacker that has to make the will save to disbelieve, not the caster. But does the armor simply not function on disbelief or is the amount of armor only the appropriate percentage? If a percentage is the result rounded up or down?

RAW on Shadow Conjuration wrote:

Shadow objects or substances have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they are 20% likely to work.

Now, in acid spells the damage clearly comes from acid (a substance) - so if those spells are disbelieved, is there only a 20 % chance they take damage? If they take damage it's still only the 20 % because of disbelief, or does it function as normal (full damage)?

Same goes for Walls. Since Grease follows the substance ruling (only 20 % chance to work) the same should be applied to Walls - they are Creation spells and the substance is Shadow stuff just as equally. They are not summons (in which case they'd have 20 % of their normal HP).

By the same logic Shadow Secure Shelter is not very secure at all, no matter which Shadow Spell is used.

Even worse, since "objects automatically succeed on their Will saves against this spell" all creation-based Shadow spells are useless against falling rocks, constructs and siege engines. If the GM was peevish enough, even rain would fall straight through "Secure" Shelter's roof. A truly Evil GM (such as me on my bad days) would say that all ranged attacks pass through them normally. Projectiles are objects. This could be taken even further, meaning that Shadow spells are effective only against natural attacks and creatures - even a paper armor or clothes would provide sufficient immunity to them.

On the other hand this would mean that creation-based Shadow Spells that deal damage based on their substance (acid, for example) would have their full effect even on disbelief 80 % of the time when using Shades if ruling that way. 20 % off the damage wouldn't be too bad either.

Shadow Phase Door promises to be especially useless. Since the caster automatically disbelieves the passage there's a 20 % chance he's not able to use it, making its use as an escape route a risky endeavor at best of times.

As to the evocation spells - the fact that non-damaging effects do nothing at all to disbelievers (not even a chance) makes some spells pretty useless. Tiny Hut, for example, is completely useless. Contingency wouldn't work at all, Delayed Blast Fireball is questionable, Prismatic Spray would be an unwelcome gamble.

As such Shadow spells seem pretty useless. Sure, fun at parties and effective enough at lower levels, but at later levels pretty useless. The RAW makes it pretty clear that Shadow spells are at their most effective when summoning (for conjuration) and for direct damage spells (for evocation). Creation conjuration spells and non-damaging evocation spells have serious drawbacks.

Despite all this I have a gnome illusionist who uses mostly Shadow spells - and I like it. I just wish there's be more logic behind the spells - the creation part for starters for both types of spells. Shadow varieties of shelters (Secure Shelter and Tiny Hut) and Walls should have at least some substance so that you couldn't just walk or throw rocks through them.

I hope this dissection of the spells has some errors in it. Otherwise my shadow illusionist gnome will be sad.

[Grick]

khokkanen wrote:

Regarding Shadow Mage Armor I agree that it's the attacker that has to make the will save to disbelieve, not the caster. But does the armor simply not function on disbelief or is the amount of armor only the appropriate percentage? If a percentage is the result rounded up or down?

If someone does not disbelieve the mage armor, it has full effect. If they do disbelieve, then it gets weird. I guess the armor would just be 20% as strong. Round down. Since that sucks, I'd be tempted to say the armor has a 20% chance of working, and just make one check per creature that attacks you. Spending a 4th level spell on mage armor should give some kind of benefit.

khokkanen wrote:

Now, in acid spells the damage clearly comes from acid (a substance) - so if those spells are disbelieved, is there only a 20 % chance they take damage? If they take damage it's still only the 20 % because of disbelief, or does it function as normal (full damage)?

Acid Arrow is a spell that deals damage. Each disbelieving creature takes only one-fifth (20%) damage from the attack. So roll your damage, then apply 20% of it if they disbelieve.

khokkanen wrote:

Shadow varieties of shelters (Secure Shelter and Tiny Hut) and Walls should have at least some substance so that you couldn't just walk or throw rocks through them.

You can walk and throw rocks through Tiny Hut normally. You just get total concealment. The only difference is enemies that disbelieve have an 80% chance to see through it. (and rain and wind and stuff would probably go through it)

For secure shelter (and walls, and grease) they act normally if you don't disbelieve. If you do, they're 20% as strong and the creature can sort of see through it. I would say it grants concealment, instead of total concealment, which conveniently is 20%. And if the creature wants to attack it, it would have 20% of the HP and hardness of a normal stone building.

[Kim Hokkanen]

Grick wrote:

For secure shelter (and walls, and grease) they act normally if you don't disbelieve. If you do, they're 20% as strong and the creature can sort of see through it. I would say it grants concealment, instead of total concealment, which conveniently is 20%. And if the creature wants to attack it, it would have 20% of the HP and hardness of a normal stone building.

I like your benevolent interpretation of the RAW. I hope my GM sees it the same way. As an occasionally LE GM I'd rule as I wrote on the original message in my games (if this ever would come up). Most of the time I'm CG so the players might get away with the less strict interpretation.

True about the acid spells. They do deal damage and thus follow slightly different rules than other creations.

[Grick]

Grick wrote:

For secure shelter... if the creature wants to attack it, it would have 20% of the HP and hardness of a normal stone building.

This breaks down a bit when multiple creatures are involved.

Orc fails his save, so the spell acts normally to him. He sees a house, and starts smashing his way in, using normal stone building stats.

Goblin makes his save, so it's 20% effective. He starts smashing his way in, using 20% of the stone building stats.

But at how many HP does the wall collapse?

Maybe it makes more sense for the Goblin to deal 80% more damage to it....

[Kim Hokkanen]

These are exactly the kind of situations I'd really like to get an official answer for. Shadow spells need some clarification - and I wouldn't mind some simplification. When after a single spellcasting I end up having to roll several extra rolls per turn to figure out if the attack is effective this time around I'm bound to get a little cranky even as a player, never mind the horror of GMing a game where someone spams shadow spells (from a wand for example).

In the situation above I'd rule that the goblin can walk through the building's walls. That's what the RAW says - the building is not a summoned creature (or an object). It's a creation. A minor difference as far as RAI goes (I hope) but significant enough to allow for some pretty funny moments when playing.

[Grick]

Kim Hokkanen wrote:

In the situation above I'd rule that the goblin can walk through the building's walls. That's what the RAW says - the building is not a summoned creature (or an object). It's a creation.

Hrm.

So someone casts Shadow Conjuration, Greater (SpLv7) to mimic a conjuration (creation) Secure Shelter (SpLv4).

If the goblin fails its will save, it acts exactly like a normal non-shadow Secure Shelter.

If the goblin makes it save to disbelieve, the shelter appears as transparent images superimposed on vague, shadowy forms. In all other ways, the shelter is 60% effective (rather than the 20% of the lower level spell).

I think the only way to interpret that in the case of a building, is for it to be kind of transparent (concealment) and, for the goblin, 60% of the normal hardness and HP (and saves, if relevant).

If the disbelieving goblin attacks the shelter, I would instead increase his damage by 40% to keep a total of HP damage for the entire thing (and not have to track damage from various sources).

I don't see any way he's going to just walk through the shelter, the shadows are quasi-real illusions, so they have some substance.

[Kim Hokkanen]

Grick wrote:

I don't see any way he's going to just walk through the shelter, the shadows are quasi-real illusions, so they have some substance.

True. After reading the Shadow Conjuration description for the umphteenth time I finally realized where I went wrong - the solidity, hardness and HP of the substance aren't its effects.

Here's the part I had been subconsciously ignoring: "Shadow conjurations are only one-fifth (20%) as strong as the real things..."

And this is the part that confused me: "Shadow objects or substances have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they are 20% likely to work."

All in all this brings us back to the question of acid - since it's a created substance and the damage it deals is an effect of that substance is it possible to avoid taking damage altogether? First disbelieve, then the effect just doesn't work.

[Grick]

Kim Hokkanen wrote:

All in all this brings us back to the question of acid - since it's a created substance and the damage it deals is an effect of that substance is it possible to avoid taking damage altogether? First disbelieve, then the effect just doesn't work.

Acid Arrow is a spell that deals damage. So follow the rules about spells that deal damage. It deals 20% damage to unbelievers.

Lets say you have a storybook witch. You use Shadow Create Water and fill a bucket, then you dump it on her. The spell doesn't deal damage, it just makes water, however water melts the witch. This means if the witch disbelieves, the water is 20% likely to work.

[WRoy]

Grick wrote:

You can walk and throw rocks through Tiny Hut normally. You just get total concealment. The only difference is enemies that disbelieve have an 80% chance to see through it. (and rain and wind and stuff would probably go through it)

I'd rule that a shadow Tiny Hut is real enough to stop mundane rain and wind.

[hogarth]

Nobody's mentioned Sepia Snake Sigil? You can make dozens of them (there's no component cost for it and the duration is permanent) and scatter them around your enemy's hideout. ;-)

[Shadow_Charlatan]

here's another rule that might have some use with the Shadow Conjuration spells

Pathfinder Core Rulebook pg.214 wrote:

If the target of a spell is yourself (the Target line of the spell description includes “You”), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The saving throw and spell resistance lines are omitted from such spells.

personally i would consider the

Pathfinder Core Rulebook pg.214 wrote:

(the Target line of the spell description includes “You”)

bracket being an example and thus all Range:touch spells are allowed rather than limited exclusively to Target:You.

so here's my question, if you can cast a spell simulated by Shadow Conjuration on yourself without being bothered by spell resistance, does that have any bearing on interactions with objects he creates using Shadow Conjuration ?

A: interactions by the caster bypass SR and he can pick them up and handle them as any other object.
Which makes Minor/Major Creation useful, but also brings up the issue of being subject to spells such as Black Tentacles if created by the caster
(all spells listed are assumed to be simulated by a Shadow Conjuration spell)

B: Spell Resistance is taken into account when handling shadow objects even when it's by the caster, so if the caster fails the SR check (or has the trait Magic Immunity) can't be interacted with, simply passing through his/her hands without any substance, as will any conjured creatures or effects.

[Grick]

Shadow_Charlatan wrote:

personally i would consider the

Pathfinder Core Rulebook pg.214 wrote:

(the Target line of the spell description includes “You”)

bracket being an example and thus all Range:touch spells are allowed rather than limited exclusively to Target:You.

Allowed by what?

If you cast a spell where the target line of the spell description includes "You" then you do not have a save or apply SR. Which is mostly redundant considering "A creature's spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities."

For instance, if you cast Shield, you don't have to make a save against it or overcome a Spell Resistance check.

Shadow_Charlatan wrote:

so here's my question, if you can cast a spell simulated by Shadow Conjuration on yourself without being bothered by spell resistance, does that have any bearing on interactions with objects he creates using Shadow Conjuration ?

"Any effect created by shadow conjuration allows spell resistance, even if the spell it is simulating does not."

So if you cast Shadow Mage Armor on your drow friend, you have to overcome her SR (if she didn't lower it). If you cast Shadow Mage Armor on yourself and you have SR, you don't have to do anything about it.

Shadow_Charlatan wrote:

A: interactions by the caster bypass SR and he can pick them up and handle them as any other object.

The caster would probably disbelieve the spell, so the object would be 20% as strong as normal (or have 20% chance to work).

Shadow_Charlatan wrote:

Which makes Minor/Major Creation useful, but also brings up the issue of being subject to spells such as Black Tentacles if created by the caster

(all spells listed are assumed to be simulated by a Shadow Conjuration spell)

If you cast Shadow Black Tentacles and enter the effect, aside from SR you should be treated like anyone else, making appropriate saves and possibly being bludgeoned.

I may be misunderstanding your point, though.