Shadow Conjuration and non-offensive spells

[Christian]

Yes, the oil burns. 20% ignited is still ignited ... The oil burns for real. The spell may be partially disbelieved, but 20% of it cannot be.

FTR, I'd rule the same way on everything but this. I'd give the oil a 20% chance to ignite, otherwise no effect ...

Also FTR, I fully agree with Thanee on the point that there's a lot of room for DM judgment with these spells. If I were playing a caster in her campaign, I'd skip the grumbling & just suck it up. It's a pretty useful spell regardless, especially for a sorcerer or bard.

 

[Thanee]

...especially for the bard, I'd say. Giving indirect access to other classes spell lists seems pretty good to me.

What I am basically saying, btw, is, that those spells are simply built and meant (IMHO, of course) for offensive use.

All those other uses might work technically, but do not follow the basic idea of these spells (again... IMHO, of course).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Saeviomagy]

Well, let's say I have a hard time to figure how something could bounce off something that isn't there (and isn't perceivable as well).

If the shadow spell would change the mental perception of the opponent, yeah, then I could see it work like that. But otherwise, it just creates an invisible armor, which doesn't stop attacks. That's hardly something that would change the way the opponent is attacking.

Illusions produce sensory feedback.

Stand near a wall.

Close your eyes.

Punch at the wall, but be careful about it.

Now - which of the following happens:
a) You break your hand and arm because you didn't feel the wall
b) You reflexively stop the motion of your hand when it hurts.

Voila - how mage armour works when you don't disbelieve it.

Sorry, but to me, the stuff stated in the spell description simply does not cover those spells. It's only applicable to summon monster type spells.

If you really, really believe that to be true, then I cannot help you. You have wandered far from the realms of the actual rules.

The rules say:

A shadow creature has one-fifth the hit points of a normal creature of its kind (regardless of whether it’s recognized as shadowy). It deals normal damage and has all normal abilities and weaknesses. Against a creature that recognizes it as a shadow creature, however, the shadow creature’s damage is one-fifth (20%) normal, and all special abilities that do not deal lethal damage are only 20% likely to work. (Roll for each use and each affected character separately.) Furthermore, the shadow creature’s AC bonuses are one-fifth as large.

Note specifically what this applies to - a shadow creature. Not a creature summoned by a shadow 'summon monster' spell, not an animal, not a humanoid.

ANY SHADOW CREATURE.

Mount summons a horse.

Hell, even phantom steed states that it summons a
"horselike creature"

The rules are clear.

The big problem is, that the shadow brand of illusions is not really explained. It only states what the shadowy portion does (and what it does, if someone is fooled by the illusion). But it doesn't state at all, what kind of illusion it actually is and how the illusionary portion really works (like figment or like pattern or like phantasm?).

The rules are clear. They are partially real. Unless disbelieved, they function how the individual spell states. The individual spells cover what they do quite well, perhaps with exceptions like mage armour (ie - is it a +1 ac if disbelieved or a +4 20% of the time?)

The problems you see are simply not there. I disbelieve them.

 

[Thanee]

The rules are there, of course, but they are (to me at least) simply not working (or even meant) for those spells.

As written, yes, a creature is a creature, but that is not what that part is about (IMHO). It only talks about creatures used to attack other creatures (IMHO).

The mage armor example is good, tho. Just that illusions normally (in many cases, shadow unfortunately doesn't really state how that particular stuff works) do not create sensory feedback for touch. The shadow illusion obviously does for the shadow portion, but the illusory portion? And why should someone hold the sword back, just because it 'hits armor', it's not like you are going to hurt yourself, if you try to punch through...

Anyways... as stated above, this is not really something, that can be clearly decided upon, it's just a matter of personal preferance.

One could go by the little the rules present and just apply it (what you do), or could see holes in those rules and translate them (what I do).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Tzarevitch]

The oil ignites. The oil burns for real. The spell may be partially disbelieved, but 20% of it cannot be.

I disagree. As I look at the 3.5 SRD, for Shadow Evocation, "Nondamaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers they have NO EFFECT." (Emphasis added.) "Objects automatically succeed on their Will saves against this spell."

Igniting oil does not cause the oil to "take damage", it causes it to catch on fire. That is a special condition. The flaming oil has the capacity to inflict damage in and of itself to other creatures or objects but it does not take damage from the spell therefore the oil is not affected.

Hmm. They seem to have fixed some of the problems with the spell in 3.5 when I wasn't looking.

The giant is immune to fire. 20% of the spell is real fire - that's what the spell does, create a small amount of 'real' from shadow, and supplement it with illusion.

Fire is fire is fire, regardless of whether it's magic or natural or partly illusiory.

Actually, now that I look at the 3.5 version of the spell it does not say that 20% is real, it only says that it does 20% of the damage. That change in wording means a lot because it doesn't leave that question of what is the 80% that is "not real"?

I should've read the 3.5 version more closely. They seem to have fixed some of the horrible problems with the Shadow Magic spells by removing the words to the effect of __% real and changed them to "___% effective" or "___ likely to occur". That removes the stupid problem of "real vs. not real" that the old version had. Now it is all "real" it is only that it is __% as powerful in general as the imitated spell.

The illusion (for mage armour) is that of your sword bouncing off the invisible mage armour. You feel it, you react to it, and your sword swing is disrupted as a result.

This part of these spells is still problematic. If a mechanical trap (an object) swings a sword (also an object) at your armor it automatically disbelieves the effect because it is an object and therefore ignores it completely. Yet if I swing the same sword (an object) somehow the fact that I can think means that I somehow can make the spell real for a weapon that has no ability to think and should automatically be able to ignore it. That part of the Shadow magic spells it still stupid. I must admit however, they seem to have fixed enough of the problems with these spells that I may actually permit them back into my game.

Tzarevitch

 

[IceBear]

Perhaps the spell is "broadcasting" into the mind your attacker that there is mage armor protecting you. So even though he shouldn't know there is armor there, the magic of the spell causes him to react as though there was mage armor there. It IS magic after all

 

[Thanee]

Then it should have the [mind-affecting] tag.

Bye
Thanee

 

[IceBear]

Then it should have the [mind-affecting] tag.

Bye
Thanee

It probably should for it to work like I think it was intended. When spells are just messed up like this one is, I tend to just keep things simple and explain it away as "magic". Lazy I know, but it works.

They seem to want you to be able to use this spell to simulate any other spell, so to have to make special ruling on a spell by spell basis and then record them so you can be consistent in the future seems to be more work than it's worth. Easier to just say all spells work the same and come up with some BS (like I did) to explain away any questioning players if you have to

 

[Thanee]

That certainly works.

Just not my style. I prefer some explanation, which makes sense (at least to me ).

Bye
Thanee

 

[IceBear]

That certainly works.

Just not my style. I prefer some explanation, which makes sense (at least to me ).

Bye
Thanee

Oh, I would have too 5 or 10 years ago, but I barely have enough time to play let alone start delving into fixing crappy spells anymore. It just isn't a priority now I'm afraid - adventures, fleshing out NPCs, etc has become more important than complete rule/reason consistency

I used to be very much into the letter of the rules and I'm now more a spirit of the rules person