Saeviomagy said:
If you can read this as being unclear, then there is just flat-out no point talking rules with you.
Unclear? Why unclear, the part is very clear about what it does to a summoned creature.
But shadow conjuration also says this:
SRD said:
Shadow conjurations are actually one-fifth (20%) as strong as the real things...
This leads me to the conclusion, that a (disbelieved) spell only has one-fifth of its actual effect. The effect of phantom steed is mostly in its carrying capacity (probably also speed, I just wouldn't reduce both intuitively, since that would reduce the actual effect to 4% not 20%, but it's probably more accurate to do both (summoned creatures also get multiple reductions... AC and hit points, for example)).
The special abilities (walk over water and such) would be only 20% likely to occur at every given opportunity (one might even have to check each round for continuous use).
Here's the part that says that:
SRD said:
...all special abilities that do not deal lethal damage are only 20% likely to work. (Roll for each use and each affected character separately.)
Note, that this is neglecting the first part of that sentence, which limits it to disbelievers only. It's the only way to derive 20% from an on/off, non-scaleable ability to do it on the time scale, however. And the ability can only be one-fifth of the 'strength' (could also be read as intensity) of the original ability, as we know.
You also said:
Unfortunately 'translating' what isn't there is just making stuff up.
I agree, but the following part is very much there:
SRD said:
Shadow conjurations are actually one-fifth (20%) as strong as the real things...
However, your claim of sensory feedback is in no way supported by the spell's description or the general description of shadow illusions, so who's making up stuff?
The part about creatures does not make other rules of the spell obsolete or supercedes them. What I am saying is, that the part about creatures simply does not cover the question about carrying capacity (because it is irrelevant for summoned creatures usually) and therefore the question has to be answered based on the other rules the spell description states.
Take a look at 'mirage arcana', a 5th level illusion spell that SPECIFICALLY generates tactile illusion. And that's just a glamer. Shadow actually creates some real stuff too.
shadow |= glamer / mirage arcana |= shadow conjuration
SRD said:
A creature that succeeds on its save sees the shadow conjurations as transparent images superimposed on vague, shadowy forms.
Sees... not hears, smells, feels, tastes... just sees.
The spell (and general rules about shadow illusions) doesn't state in what way the illusionary portion presents itself, if not disbelieved.
Let's get back to the mage armor example.
First, we go to another example, which is somewhat similar.
A shadow conjured wall of stone. Needs a higher version of the spell, but that shouldn't matter, really.
Such a shadow wall of stone used as a bridge won't support the full weight of a real wall of stone for sure, because it isn't completely real. If a creature with too much weight would enter the bridge, the bridge would break apart. It simply doesn't have the strength to support the weight. It's irrelevant, whether a creature believes in the wall or not. Some of it simply isn't real.
Now someone swings a sword at you, protected by a shadow mage armor. Since the spell does not change the way that someone acts (not mind-influencing), it's just a matter of how much the mage armor stops from the incoming force. Even if it feels like hitting a real mage armor (which is not said in the rules), why should that someone swing with a weaker force in that case (remember, not mind-influencing)? In the end, it just comes to the stopping power of the armor, and that is only 20%, because only 20% is real and the shadow mage armor is only 20% as strong as a real mage armor.
Now the problem with this explanation is the following:
SRD said:
...though creatures who believe the shadow conjurations to be real are affected by them at full strength.
This could be seen in two ways.
The mage armor affects the creature it is cast upon (it's the target of the spell after all). This is the literal reading of this rule. It's obviously not reasonable to say, that whatever that person thinks has any influence on how a sword strike at that person is executed. So only the real portion of the spell can have any effect, regardless of saving throws against the illusion.
Of course, one could also say, that the mage armor affects the attacker, since it changes the AC, which he has to hit. Note, that this would not be a literal reading of the spell, since the attacker is not the target of the spell or included in the effect of the spell. Anyways... then we are at the situation, where the illusion has no way to let itself known, which could change the way the attacker swings his sword (see above), and even if it would, that would really change little, because the attacker would still try to hit as hard as possible (or even harder, there is more armor to pierce, after all). In the end, only the real portion of the spell can have any effect here, too.
Back to the wall of stone, a literal reading of the above, for a creature, that believes in the illusion, would mean, that the shadow wall is equally strong as a real wall of stone. This is in conflict with that part here:
SRD said:
Shadow conjurations are actually one-fifth (20%) as strong as the real things...
But the sentence goes on and says:
SRD said:
...though creatures who believe the shadow conjurations to be real are affected by them at full strength.
So, the creature that believes is affected at full strength, altho the strength actually is only one-fifth of the real thing.
This is obviously a contradiction. So it cannot work that way.
This part here supports my claim:
SRD said:
A shadow creature has one-fifth the hit points of a normal creature of its kind (regardless of whether it’s recognized as shadowy).
Even if
not disbelieved, a shadow creature has only one-fifth the hit points. So it does not affect the victim of the illusion in the exact same way as a real summoned creature does, since it will die quicker!
SRD said:
Furthermore, the shadow creature’s AC bonuses are one-fifth as large.
It also only has one-fifth of the AC bonuses.
Note, that this part is written after the sentence, that talks about affected creatures, that failed their save. I'm pretty sure, that it has to be seen in an independant way, like every sentence is one item in a list, tho.
In fact, affecting can only mean, that
direct changes are done to the victim in some way. Damage does that, AC or hit points do not. This is similar to the mage armor example, because it basically states, that the spell cannot make the illusionary part completely real, it's simply not possible, regardless of whether it's recognized as shadowy.
Only if the illusionary part affects the victim - which mage armor does not, because it changes the AC of the target, not the victim of the illusion, but an attacking summoned creature does, because it deals damage to the victim - a failed saving throw results in a stronger effect, where the victim is affected at full strength.
The phantom steed also does not affect the rider. It's simply there, nothing in its existance affects the 'victim' of the illusion, unless it would attack him, for example. Its carrying capacity also does not affect the rider, there is no change to the rider done. Therefore it doesn't matter, whether the rider believes in the shadow phantom steed or not, it cannot carry more than 20% of a real phantom steed.
I find that sticking to the rules means far less disputes with no real answers.
Well, I prefer consistency. And as shown above, the rules can work in a consistent way.
(after all - it's entirely possible for two players to have totally different visions of the 'spirit' of the rules, and be entirely correct, which means an arguement that either never ends, or ends with the DM saying "shut up!", which isn't exactly a recipe for group coherence)
Yeah, agreed.
Bye
Thanee
