| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
First, the links to the relevant abilities:
Shadow Conjuration
Mage Armor
Ok, so let us assume that someone is using Shadow Conjuration to cast Mage Armor on themselves (perhaps they do not have another means to cast Mage Armor).
Let us also assume that a BBEG is attacking the creature with the Shadow Mage Armor and, after the first attack, has successfully made the saving throw.
Question 1: what is the effect of the Shadow Mage Armor after the save?
Possible answers:
1) 20% chance to be effective per subsequent attack by the BBEG
2) 20% chance to be effective against the BBEG regardless of the number of attacks.
3) something else?
Question 2: If the BBEG has Spell Resistance does the caster of the Shadow Conjuration need to make an SR check for the Mage Armor to be effective?
Possible answers:
1) Yes, it states that Shadow Conjuration has SR.
2) No, the recipient of the Shadow Mage Armor is who the spell resistance is checked against.
3) something else?
You use material from the Plane of Shadow to shape quasi-real illusions of one or more creatures, objects, or forces.
The Mage Armor spell is an invisible force effect, being invisible it is not an illusion for someone to believe or disbelieve, so it does not fit into any of the three types.
You can not use this spell to evoke Mage Armor.
Shadow conjuration can mimic any sorcerer or wizard conjuration (summoning) or conjuration (creation) spell of 3rd level or lower.
School conjuration (creation)
With that out of the way.
Question 1:My interpretation would be 20% chance to work against each attack if the BBEG saved.
Question 2: I believe #2 is correct.
For the first, I think GM interpretation. One roll or one per attack, both are 20%. This is a case where a character shouldn't feel gimped no matter how it is ruled.
I think 2 for the second. Though I'd like to look at other spells (buffs that give opponents a save and their SR) before saying it as more than a gut feeling. If I remember, I'll look in the morning.
Even if you disbelieve it the Shadow Mage Armor is still partially real.
Additionally, you can use Shadow Conjuration for more than attack or summoning. You can use it for Minor and Major Creation.
Shadow objects or substances have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they are 20% likely to work.
It is clear that Shadow Conjuration can be used for Mage Armor, the questions are how it gets adjudicated after that.
Splendor,
Regarding question 1, could you cite your rationale in the Shadow Conjuration spell? I do not see anything that allows for what you are saying.
First not all illusions give automatic saves. Shadow conjuration gives a save if you interact with it... so in the case of shadow conjuration mage armor you would save when you attack someone protected by the shadow conjuration mage armor.
Second SR is checked on the target of the spell. If you cast shadow conjuration mage armor on your ally you will have to test against your ally's SR if they have any. The enemy is not the target of the spell.
Also anyone that saves against it would kick in this line for themselves:
Shadow objects or substances have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they are 20% likely to work.
So it won't be a 20% effectiveness, it will be a 20% chance to work. Basically for 1 in 5 disbelievers it will still work, and for the other 4 it's just a wasted spell.
the following line:
Furthermore, the shadow creature's AC bonuses are just one-fifth as large.
Would have no effect on the shadow conjuration mage armor since shadow conjuration mage armor is not a shadow creature.
Regarding Q2: No SR applies
...If the spell acts on anything else and the creature is affected as a consequence, no roll is required. Spell-resistant creatures can be harmed by a spell when they are not being directly affected.
In this instant I would rule that the spell "acts on anything else"
Also the 20% would be rolled one time on the first attack, after that it's either working or not on that guy. It isn't one of those spells where you check each instance.
Question 1: what is the effect of the Shadow Mage Armor after the save?
20% chance to be effective per subsequent attack by the BBEG
I think the intent of the spell is only to check once. Otherwise spells like summon monster will have to be checked every time a creature attacks and lands a hit.
Question 2: If the BBEG has Spell Resistance does the caster of the Shadow Conjuration need to make an SR check for the Mage Armor to be effective?
Yes, it states that Shadow Conjuration has SR.
Shadow Conjuration says it allows SR even when it would not normally do so.
my 2cp:
Only 20% real applies all the time. It shouldn't be a 20% chance to be fully effective. So +0.8 (round to +1 seems reasonable)is the way to calculate it.
Mage Armour is invisible, so there is no chance for the opponent to 'believe' it, you don't know it's there. I would allow a save to be automatically successful. (unless you have a house rule that made armour is a visible force field of course).
my 2cp:
Only 20% real applies all the time. It shouldn't be a 20% chance to be fully effective. So +0.8 (round to +1 seems reasonable)is the way to calculate it.Mage Armour is invisible, so there is no chance for the opponent to 'believe' it, you don't know it's there. I would allow a save to be automatically successful. (unless you have a house rule that made armour is a visible force field of course).
Not all illusions are visible so not seeing it is not the sole factor. Interacting with it through any of your senses is how you get the save, not just seeing it. So when you go to attack the caster, and your weapon goes up against it, that is your interaction. You can't see ventriloquism and that grants a save to disbelieve.
my 2cp:
Only 20% real applies all the time. It shouldn't be a 20% chance to be fully effective. So +0.8 (round to +1 seems reasonable)is the way to calculate it.Mage Armour is invisible, so there is no chance for the opponent to 'believe' it, you don't know it's there. I would allow a save to be automatically successful. (unless you have a house rule that made armour is a visible force field of course).
You can say that but the rules don't back you up. The only thing that it says if it's damage it's 20% damage if it's a creature it's 20% a creature and if it is any other effect then it's 20% for full effect.
You can say that but the rules don't back you up. The only thing that it says if it's damage it's 20% damage if it's a creature it's 20% a creature and if it is any other effect then it's 20% for full effect.my 2cp:
Only 20% real applies all the time. It shouldn't be a 20% chance to be fully effective. So +0.8 (round to +1 seems reasonable)is the way to calculate it.Mage Armour is invisible, so there is no chance for the opponent to 'believe' it, you don't know it's there. I would allow a save to be automatically successful. (unless you have a house rule that made armour is a visible force field of course).
really? how about this little snippet:
Shadow conjurations are only one-fifth (20%) as strong as the real things
and whilst I concede that this snippet appears later:
If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is only 20% likely to occur.
I ask you which makes more sense? something that is 20% real working in full every 5 attempts or something which is 20% effective all the time? and is still within the rules as written?
especially when this bit is in the rules on shadow creatures:
Furthermore, the shadow creature's AC bonuses are just one-fifth as large.
but YMMV
Not all illusions are visible so not seeing it is not the sole factor. Interacting with it through any of your senses is how you get the save, not just seeing it. So when you go to attack the caster, and your weapon goes up against it, that is your interaction. You can't see ventriloquism and that grants a save to disbelieve.stuff
But you interact with ventriloquism, you still have a way to perceive it. I'd allow an auto-successful save against ventriloquism if you were deaf for instance.
Illusions rely on your belief, if you are unaware of the illusion it can't affect you (for the most part, I'm sure there are exceptions, but none spring to mind :)).
You can say that but the rules don't back you up. The only thing that it says if it's damage it's 20% damage if it's a creature it's 20% a creature and if it is any other effect then it's 20% for full effect.my 2cp:
Only 20% real applies all the time. It shouldn't be a 20% chance to be fully effective. So +0.8 (round to +1 seems reasonable)is the way to calculate it.Mage Armour is invisible, so there is no chance for the opponent to 'believe' it, you don't know it's there. I would allow a save to be automatically successful. (unless you have a house rule that made armour is a visible force field of course).
really? how about this little snippet:
Shadow conjurations are only one-fifth (20%) as strong as the real things
How about the entire line? That snip doesn't tell you how shadow conjuration works. The rest of text does.
and whilst I concede that this snippet appears later:If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is only 20% likely to occur.I ask you which makes more sense? something that is 20% real working in full every 5 attempts or something which is 20% effective all the time? and is still within the rules as written?
The first since that's what the spell actually says. Whereas the second is just you making things up.
especially when this bit is in the rules on shadow creatures:
Furthermore, the shadow creature's AC bonuses are just one-fifth as large.but YMMV
Bolded for emphasis -- I mean sure you can take the rules for something and misapply them but that doesn't make you right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Discussing how mage armor works as a personal conjuration spell is really not the correct way to answer the OP's question. Mage armor is simply incorrectly categorised as a conjuration spell when it is the very definition of an abjuration spell.
Abjuration:
Abjurations are protective spells. They create physical or magical barriers.
Conjuration, Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates.
So a barrier that moves with the caster is the poster boy abjuration spell, pure and simple. The GM should simply say that Paizo made a mistake and reclassify mage armor as an abjuration spell.
Interesting point...but...
If it's a conjuration spell in the CRB, then the advice here needs to follow that, as this is the Rules Questions forum.
My 2c ...
Each monster attacking someone with Shadow Conjuration (Mage Armor) should make a d% vs. 20% check the first time it interacts (e.g. attacks) with the spell. If it fails, then the mage armor fully works against all attacks. If it passes, then the mage armor is useless against that creature for all attacks.
The SR is a little more interesting. I would say that it affects both the target of the mage armor (if applicable) and also an attacking creature.
Discussing how mage armor works as a personal conjuration spell is really not the correct way to answer the OP's question. Mage armor is simply incorrectly categorised as a conjuration spell when it is the very definition of an abjuration spell.
Abjuration:
Abjurations are protective spells. They create physical or magical barriers.Conjuration, Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates.
So a barrier that moves with the caster is the poster boy abjuration spell, pure and simple. The GM should simply say that Paizo made a mistake and reclassify mage armor as an abjuration spell.
Mage Armor has legacy behind it being Conjuration, unfortunately. Though I do agree that it should be Abjuration.
My 2c ...
Each monster attacking someone with Shadow Conjuration (Mage Armor) should make a d% vs. 20% check the first time it interacts (e.g. attacks) with the spell. If it fails, then the mage armor fully works against all attacks. If it passes, then the mage armor is useless against that creature for all attacks.
The SR is a little more interesting. I would say that it affects both the target of the mage armor (if applicable) and also an attacking creature.
There is no reason that each attacking creature should get a chance. Either the shadow spell worked or it didn't, and that's based on the target of the spell.
The point about SR makes even less sense unless you test SR of mage armor each time a creature attacks someone covered by mage armor which is not how SR works.