Most people wouldn't allow it because it doesn't explicitly say you can go over 100%. There is, however, no restriction I know of besides that. RAW, it works.
There are no rules covering this - so no source exists. There is no source indicating you can even exceed 100% let alone gain any benefit for exceeding that 100%.
So either incorporate the 3.5 rules or speak to your GM.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Realness caps itself at 100%, as a matter of common sense.
Do we really need to get a ruling for this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Source?
He doesn't have to cite anything. You're claiming that there is a benefit beyond having 100% "realness" to a Shadow spell. As far as I'm concerned, if it's 100% real, then it's all real, full stop. There's no "super-real" or "ultra-real" or "mega-real" or anything like that in the Pathfinder rules that determines what happens when a Shadow spell is more than 100% real.
The only time I would ever think that having over 100% "realness" is relevant, would be if there were abilities or effects that reduce the "realness" of Shadow spells by, say, 10 or 20%.
In fact, that'd be the only benefit of having over 100% "realness" with Shadow spells, and that's about as corner-case as it gets.
It's as Claxon says, it's common sense. Even if, numerically speaking, it's 120% real, it results in a "more human than human" scenario, in which case, how much more "human" (or to be proper, "real") can you get?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back in 3.5, a common build was a shadow specialist that got frighteningly high 'realness' percentages, well above 100%.
It also isn't clear that all of those abilities (and/or others which provide even larger percentage increases) would stack.
If they did, would they be flat increases to the original percentage, or would it, for example, increase the original percentage by an amount equal to the percentage bonus being provided?
For example, in one method, it'd be 50% + 20% = 70%. In another, it'd be 50% + 20% = 60%. It makes a difference.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure most athletes give 110% effort. That's what my little league ID card pledged me to.
Wouldn't 120% real work the same way?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What exactly would 120% realness entail?
Kanye would show up on time, but you shouldn't be honored by it.
Realness caps itself at 100%, as a matter of common sense.
Do we really need to get a ruling for this?
New and improved, now brought to you with 20% more reality that previously thought possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep there's a rule for this. It's called "Too real"
After it goes over 100% realness it becomes 'unreal' and everything automatically doesn't believe it.
I'm pretty sure most athletes give 110% effort. That's what my little league ID card pledged me to.
Wouldn't 120% real work the same way?
It's a figure of speech. It's actually in accordance with the saying "Do the best of someone better." Regardless, it's a logical anomaly.
Simply put, the "110% effort" is still 100% of what you have to offer.
The reason it's commonly brought up is because it's designed to push people beyond what they think is their limits, or to question whether their 100% is really their 100% (as it can vary from time to time).
It otherwise makes no sense when put into a mathematical or logical perspective, which is what we're discussing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magical Lineage lets you apply Solid Shadows to Shades (80% real).
In addition to the above common sense lest someone take this idea and run, RAW, Solid Shadows can't be applied to Shades (nor any other non-shadow conjuration, non-shadow evocation spell) without express GM permission.
Restricting it for balance reasons is one thing. However, the over 100% thing makes sense. It's just a copy that's stronger than the original -- either through magnifying the pain and perceived destruction or what have you. At that point, the shadows exceed the power of what they're trying to emulate. Therefore, comprehending them is much more worse than ignorance.
Restricting it for balance reasons is one thing. However, the over 100% thing makes sense. It's just a copy that's stronger than the original -- either through magnifying the pain and perceived destruction or what have you. At that point, the shadows exceed the power of what they're trying to emulate. Therefore, comprehending them is much more worse than ignorance.
There are no rules that say you create multiple versions of the spell, or the spell effect is more powerful because it has more "realness" to it.
An interesting houserule. But that's all it is: A houserule.
Restricting it for balance reasons is one thing. However, the over 100% thing makes sense. It's just a copy that's stronger than the original -- either through magnifying the pain and perceived destruction or what have you. At that point, the shadows exceed the power of what they're trying to emulate. Therefore, comprehending them is much more worse than ignorance.There are no rules that say you create multiple versions of the spell, or the spell effect is more powerful because it has more "realness" to it.
An interesting houserule. But that's all it is: A houserule.
Except there isn't any rules saying it can't exceed 100% I'm afraid RAW is a double-edged sword, my friend
I think some of those people that say there giving 110% are secretly only giving like 80-90% >.> conspiracy!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Long ago, Wizards began using shade spells like the ones above to copy reality. Pretty soon, those copies were copied by other wizards who thought they were real and they eventually became empty references in and of themselves. Now, no one can tell the shades from what's real.
Pathfinder: Jean Baudrillard Edition
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Medium shot. A Platonist reads this thread. Close up. She stares straight into the camera, grief-stricken and accusing. A single tear flows down her cheek. Fade to black.
|
Fetchling Arcanist 20th = +40%
Blood Arcanist (Shadow) archetype = +20%
Solid Shadows feat = +20%
Crook of Cidhureen = +50% (5 charges)
That's +130% to most 'shadow' spells (+110% if the GM does't allow Solid Shadows) IF we assume they all stack. If not then you've got a max of +50%, or +40% without items.
|
Sorry. Arcanist is what I was thinking of. Not Sorcerer. So a Blood Arcanist with the Shadow Bloodline, Solid Spells, and 20 levels of FCB into making shadow spells real could get to 160% real for shades, which, again, wouldn't do anything beyond being 100% real.
But their Shadow Enchantment, Shadow Conjuration, and Shadow Evocation spells would be 100% real also.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If realness inflation regularly exceeds 100% then shadow deflation will reduce the effectiveness of other Shadow spells until maximum realness is back to 100%. In response an angry mob will kill your character, and a Shadow Reserve Board will be instituted to regulate things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If realness inflation regularly exceeds 100% then shadow deflation will reduce the effectiveness of other Shadow spells until maximum realness is back to 100%. In response an angry mob will kill your character, and a Shadow Reserve Board will be instituted to regulate things.
But what will the effect be on the Shadow Jones Index?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If realness inflation regularly exceeds 100% then shadow deflation will reduce the effectiveness of other Shadow spells until maximum realness is back to 100%. In response an angry mob will kill your character, and a Shadow Reserve Board will be instituted to regulate things.But what will the effect be on the Shadow Jones Index?
Umbral Futures will take a dive.