Shades

[Dandu]

IMC the wording discrepancy identified by the OP is treated as an oversight, and shades is restricted to the same subschools the other two spells are.

Just a different POV.

If so, it is a mistake that has gone on uncorrected in the entire run of D&D 3.5, as neither the errata nor the FAQ makes mention of it.

 

[Reozul]

Actually the description is correct.
The Warlock's Epic Feat Shadowmaster gives him the exact same ability (same wording) as an invocation and it is explained to be "(as shades)".

So I think it is actually correct and simply represents a beefed up version that encompasses all spells.

 

[Jacob]

This has just become my most favorite spell, and hated due to the headaches it's already giving me. Don't think I have the brain or will power to think on this yet. Need a little more time to sort things out.

 

[shadyizok]

Normally, the problem with Planar Binding is that something might seek revenge later. A creature made of shadowstuff, however, goes to nothingness when the spell expires and will not be able to retaliate.

That depends. Does the shades 'call' a creature made of shadowstuff or does it use shadowstuff to 'create' the portal from which a real outsider is is called?

 

[Particle_Man]

That depends. Does the shades 'call' a creature made of shadowstuff or does it use shadowstuff to 'create' the portal from which a real outsider is is called?

Yep. A nasty interpretation is one in which the real thing is called, but you only have an 80% chance to even try to contain it, assuming it makes its will save vs. the illusion.

 

[Dandu]

That depends. Does the shades 'call' a creature made of shadowstuff or does it use shadowstuff to 'create' the portal from which a real outsider is is called?

Interesting possibility.

There's no "portal" which the called creature comes through (that's the Gate spell) but the component of the spell which calls something into a magic circle trap is the one that's being emulated.

If we assume that it's the calling function that's mimicked, then it would be an 80% chance of the spell getting something real. (Making a will save vs the spell comes first; if that will save fails, then the will save to resist being called into the trap takes place)

 

[Reozul]

After further thought and going "d'uh" over my own blindness, I have come to the conclusion that shades has the same subschool restrictions as Shadow conjuration, due to the afforementioned Epic Warlock Article.

In the Article it says the same as the spell description and no subschool restriction is given.
However, due to teleportation and plane-shift being part of conjuration, a full access to conjuration spells would leave the warlocks Dark Transient Epic feat to be completely pointless. (It gives you greater Teleport and plane-shift at-will) Unlike normal Spells, Warlock SLAs are at-will with no daily limit, so even an access to a teleport that works 80% of the time, would nullify the other feat. This has lead me to believe that the shadow-conjuration restrictions still apply (as far as RAI is concerned).

 

[Dandu]

Yes, because this would be the first time WotC released a feat that made another feat pointless.

Forgive me for saying so, but your interpretation is a little shady at best. It's a fact in D&D that some things are just better than others. For example, the Luck and Travel domains in DnD is just better than the Good domain (if you're a cleric of Fharlanghn).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Forgive me for saying so, but your interpretation is a little shady at best.

You, sir, are in the punumbra of humor at this point.

 

[Alexander123]

You, sir, are in the punumbra of humor at this point.

What does punumbra mean?