Shadow Conjuration and non-offensive spells

[Li Shenron]

My doubts come from the fact that "strong" doesn't mean anything precisely. Someone else could even say that you only have to divide the Strength score of the creature by 5, because that's the only meaning of "strength" in the manuals, which doesn't make much sense.
Your interpretation is that everything you may find the spell useful for must be divided by 5, or otherwise have a 20% chance to happen. My interpretation is that the line only refers to what later is clarified as being 20% of the hit points and AC bonuses, but nothing else.

 

[Thanee]

That is certainly a valid position, altho it will create inconsistent results as has been pointed out.

Obviously, strength cannot mean the attribute, as the examples below show. Besides, not all conjurations have a Strength attribute. Strength can only really mean something like 'magnitude of effect', and the stuff below seen as examples, but not as a finite list, of most prominent uses (damaging effects, summoned creatures).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Li Shenron]

It incredible how much a simple sentence can generate so different views
If only the guilty sentence below was not there, I think it would have been much simpler, but it's there and so the confusion. Probably the designers were so interested in ruling exactly what happens with offensive spells that forgot about all the other conjurations around...

Shadow conjurations are actually one-fifth (20%) as strong as the real things, though creatures who believe the shadow conjurations to be real are affected by them at full strength.

Also this other sentence is quite funny. Note that it talks about "objects" and "substances" (this may refers to the fogs and clouds?) and not creatures this time. I wonder what the designer mean "to work"... for a shadow weapon it's easy, but for other things is not, and again they only think about using it "against".

Shadow objects or substances have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they are 20% likely to work.

Well, have to go now, see you on monday

 

[Thanee]

Maybe this helps... if you do it by only applying what is specifically stated below, then the first sentence is completely redundant. Why should they even state it, if it has absolutely no point?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Li Shenron]

Maybe this helps... if you do it by only applying what is specifically stated below, then the first sentence is completely redundant. Why should they even state it, if it has absolutely no point?

Yeah, old trick... except that basically we always try this ("what is not specified to apply doesn't apply") when it supports our position, only to support the opposite ("what is not specified to be excluded is not excluded") when it's better. I do that all the time as well

 

[Thanee]

Doesn't it point to the exemplaric nature of the below? For me it does.

Whenever I read a rule, that gets specified, listing examples, I see it like that.
Therefore I base my understanding on the rule and check it with the examples, not use the examples in place of the rule.

Bye
Thanee