|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Argument for creating quasi-real outsiders:
Summon Spells bring a REAL creature into the fight. Shadow conjuration however, instead of bringing in a real creature, it CREATES a shadow creature. By this logic, instead of bringing in a REAL creature, planar binding should CREATE a shadow creature too.
"You use material from the Plane of Shadow to shape quasi-real illusions of one or more creatures"
No reason why you can't shape quasi-real illusions of 18HD outsiders especially since summon monster VIII includes elementals with 21HD or more. Role-play wise, you could say summon monster spells target specific types of creatures, and shadow conjuration merely makes copies of those creatures with shadow materials instead of actually bringing them in. In other words, the real creatures are just blueprints the shadow conjuration spell uses to create the shadow creatures. So with planar binding, shades could also just use the targeted outsider as a blueprint and create a shadow creature based on it instead of bringing the real outsider into a trap.
The resulting shadow creature is either under your control because you made it out of shadow materials and is basically an illusion and you have absolute control over all of your illusions, or summon monster spells have a built in obedience thing while planar binding does not, so the copied creature is independent and acts like the real thing, but that would require the creature to have its own will, and be able to disbelieve its own body, etc. It is my understanding that shadow creatures from shadow conjuration are mindless silent thralls created and controlled by you so shadow creatures created via planar binding are no different, after all, it's the same copy from blueprint principle except that planar binding can choose a lot more blueprints than summon monster spells.
No where does it say that you are limited to summoning spells to shape quasi-real creatures.
Arguments for bringing in a real outsider:
1. Planar binding is a CALLING subtype, not a SUMMON. So in this case shades would first roll to see if it can beat the target's spell resistance, then the outsider would roll to see if it disbelieves the illusion, then the outsider would roll for the planar binding's will save, and finally, if the outsider successfully disbelieved but still failed its will save, a final roll will occur for the 80% success chance.
Shades, unlike shadow conjuration, is able to use conjuration(teleport) spells, so no reason why it can't teleport an outsider in like planar binding, but then again summon monster also teleports creatures in and shades creates copies instead of teleporting.
So which is it? When shades mimics Planar Binding, does it bring in a real outsider or create a quasi-real one?
note: Please don't say shades cannot cast planar binding, you are wrong. The rules clearly state that Shades is like shadow conjuration except that it mimics conjuration spells of 8th level or lower. Conjuration spells, not conjuration(summon) spells or sorcerer/wizard conjuration spells. It's not lazy writing, conjuration spells encompass all spells in the conjuration school. It is powerful as a level 9 spell should be, and Paizo did not alter the rules, unlike shapechange and gate, so it is intentional, unless the development team specifically says so. I usually get gate on my sorcerer, but in exchange for 2HD of controllable monsters, Shades provides a lot more flexibility which is why I'm asking. Gate is superior than shades in this sense because it can bring in up to 20HD monsters, and they don't require will checks for reduced damage and hp so such a usage of shades is not "broken" or "OP"
someonenoone111 wrote: note: Please don't say shades cannot cast planar binding, you are wrong. ... soooo, you came on the rules forum and you say you have a rules question yet, you are already telling everyone how it has to be interpreted?
As I see this is your first post I'll just wish you luck with that and say welcome to the forums.
Now, now at least he provides reasoning for his position and it's not a horrible one.
As to what would happen:
Calling has an effect on a creature on another plane of existence and does not deal damage therefore the creature being called with a shades(calling) spell would get a save to disbelieve. Upon disbelieving it would have an 80% chance to be affected anyways... some creature abilities will supersede this however.
Once the creature is actually grabbed by the spell anything it does will be at 100% since it is the actual creature and not the means used to bring it over.
A quibble: just because it's (partly) illusion doesn't mean you have total control of it. You could attempt to bond a quasi-real outsider, fail, and get attacked by it, though you would automatically disbelieve it down to whatever percentage shades grants.
Does this make sense in-universe? I could think of some cosmologies that would make it work.
Abraham spalding wrote: Now, now at least he provides reasoning for his position... True but it still conflicts to some extent with the point of a rules question. Taking an attitude like that he'll just face a "he'd get more flies with honey than vinegar" situation. Telling people on a forum they can't have, even partly, a view different then his interpretation of the rule he's asking about... historically not the best way to approach it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
PRD wrote:
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.
...
Shadow Conjuration
....
You use material from the Plane of Shadow to shape quasi-real illusions of one or more creatures, objects, or forces. Shadow conjuration can mimic any sorcerer or wizard conjuration (summoning) or conjuration (creation) spell of 3rd level or lower.
and
PRD wrote: Planar Binding
School conjuration (calling)
Your "note" is simply wrong. Shades don't remove the other limitations, it simply change the level cap. Reading your way you can cast any conjuration spell from any class. Something that this spell don't do.
Especially with the advent of the summoner, reading your way is way overpowered.
BTW, Teleport is a conjuration spell. What happen when a teleportation is 80% real)
I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my tone, it was unintentional. This is not the first Shades argument I had. At the end of every single Shades argument I had people say "You're right. By RAW you can cast every single conjuration spell 8th or lower but because it's too powerful I'm house ruling in the conjuration(summoning) and conjuration(creation) restrictions or at least the sorcerer/wizard spell list restriction." and I didn't want to have another argument on this forum, where I did in fact find 3 other threads asking the same thing with all 3 threads not coming to a consensus.
Even if you disagree whether Shades can or cannot cast planar binding, please for this topic say you agree and share your opinion, after all, the question on the title of this thread requires that.
The shadow conjuration guide I found online believes shades planar binding is just a normal planar binding and Abraham Spalding seems to agree with this interpretation.
As for Diego Rossi's post, you have to replace "mimic any sorcerer or wizard conjuration (summoning) or conjuration (creation) spell of 3rd level or lower." with "mimics conjuration spells of 8th level or lower." The result is quite powerful as Shades would allow a wizard to cast true resurrection but that's how it works in RAW, which is why as I mentioned all of my DMs restrict shades with house rules (One of my past DMs even house ruled material components in saying ignoring material components via Shades is broken). But please note that Shades has an 20% chance of failure compared to the real spell, and is of higher level too, which is why I think it all balances out, after all, level 9 spells are supposed to be crazy powerful. The pathfinder version of gate is arguably very, very powerful as you can abuse enervation to beat the charisma checks of 40hd outsiders without the 1000xp cost. An 80% real teleport just means it has an 80% chance of success. If you roll a 17 or higher the shades teleport fails.
Blahpers suggested that the created outsider has free will, which is sort of the thing I'd like cleared up.
For those who agree that shades can cast planar binding it seems their opinions boil down to these three:
1. It's just a normal planar binding with additional saves
2. You create a quasi-real clone which acts like your simulacrum because you made it, it's technically an illusion, and you control all of your own illusions, like simulacrum.
3. You create a quasi-real clone but you need to bargain with it because it thinks it's not an illusion or something.
Things would have been a LOT clearer if shadow conjuration specifically stated mimicked summon spells create shadow creatures, but it doesn't. Instead it just says the spell creates quasi-real creatures, and it mimics conjuration(summoning) and conjuration(creation) spells of 3rd level or lower, leaving the possibility of a quasi-real creature formed via a conjuration(calling) spell very possible.
Right now I have to argue with every new DM I meet to see where he stands on the shades matter before I decide whether my sorcerer should get it or not, so a clear "official" answer would be really nice. Role-play wise I enjoy creating monsters like golems or shadow creatures rather than force outsiders to do my bidding, so quasi-real 18hd outsiders support is not "power gaming" but if shades is a normal planar binding then I'll just grab gate and bind 40hd monsters and be a power gamer :P
I can't edit my 1st post to make the note sound less rude >.<
Once again I apologize. I get that a lot. People say my emails with questions sound very rude.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
There has been a comment from someone from paizo (can't recall whom) that shades should probably only work on wizard summoning and creation sub schools, but he will "check" it and probably errata it "soon" but that was a looooong time ago and still, no official erratta/FAQ.
You're fine, just understand that the right answer might not be the answer you want. It's best not to put riders on discussions like this because unless you've got a verified quote from a dev or it's something with a very high level of community agreement what you're essentially asking people to do is not give you the right answer just the answer you want. Asking people a question while telling some of them they're just wrong before you've even let them make their case is a more argumentative and less inquisitive way of approaching it.
When I first saw your note I didn't think your view was necessarily wrong but at the time I looked up both spells and I did think it could be argued either way. The wording is ambiguous for a line of spells that are themselves somewhat open ended. Telling the other side they're just wrong isn't constructive to an intelligent discussion, be open to them explaining why they think RAW/known RAI sides with their views. THEN if your side makes more sense you're good. Otherwise come prepared they might be right or present you with information you didn't have.
Yes a case can be made for how Abraham put it. The line in Shades could be meant to overwrite the line in Shadow Conjuration limiting the subschools, the phrasing could fit as a replacement. I just also think, barring a FAQ/errata which despite discussions on this stuff going on (and having posts like this come up many times in the past and be FAQ marked) for years they've never done, be braced for DM/GMs that disagree. It could also be taken the other way. "Functions like" could be taken to mean it shares the same subschool limitations just raised to 8th level, there's nothing inherently incorrect in that either. "Functions like" could have used more clarity.
Shadow and Illusion spells are such cans of worms they could be sold in most bait shops. Unfortunately that means you'll probably want to get use to GM adjudication, ask first so you're not surprised mid-combat.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Basically here:
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
So far no actual FAQ has been released but I think that the above gives enough rights to GMs to simply say no
shroudb wrote: Basically here:
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
So far no actual FAQ has been released but I think that the above gives enough rights to GMs to simply say no
Well found and quoted shroudb.
That's as close to official as you get short of an actual FAQ/errata as the head dev is basically saying how he's going to side if they actually do the FAQ/errata.
Alright thanks.
I still think such an unrestricted shades is nothing compared to miracle, the spell that lets you duplicate every spell of 7th or lower without a 20% chance of failure and no material cost, but alright. Thanks. The thread is still flagged as an faq so I'll still keep this page bookmarked but yeah, I guess I'll stick with gate for now. Nice quote shroudb, and a quote from the Lead Designer too.
blahpers wrote: A quibble: just because it's (partly) illusion doesn't mean you have total control of it. You could attempt to bond a quasi-real outsider, fail, and get attacked by it, though you would automatically disbelieve it down to whatever percentage shades grants.
Does this make sense in-universe? I could think of some cosmologies that would make it work.
Point of Order: The creature called is 100% real. The effect used to get him here is what is partly illusion.
As such the spell only really has one target: The creature you would call. Which is still a 100% real creature. However since it is the target it would get a will save to disbelieve and if it succeeds on that save then it would have a 20% chance of not being affected by the effect (conversely it has an 80% chance to be affected). Then the creature gets all the checks, saves and so on that the planar binding spell would normally allow.
In short even if it does workit's a really bad idea. You are burning an eighth level spell to have an increase in the number of methods of failure on a lower level spell in a higher level slot.
Now if you don't really have a choice? Hey it's better than nothing (if it works in the rules) but still not great.
TL:DR
The creature affected by the shades(planar binding) spell is the creature you are attempting to call. That creature would get a save to disbelieve and if successful would have an 20% chance to not be grabbed by the spell. Then he would get all the normal checks, saves and so on the spell normally allows. IF the spell does grab the creature it is 100% real the creature called since it was the target of the spell and not the effect of the spell.
It is subject to SR too, even if the original spell isn't subject to SR.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
