Shadow Conjuration and Sepia Snake Sigil

[Mistwell]

Common sense obviously seems to work different for different people.

My common sense tells me, that an illusionist, that creates a spell, that is 20% real and 80% illusion (which is what shadow conjurations are), does very well know, that 80% of the spell is not real and thus would not be affected by that portion of the spell, because illusions by their very nature can only affect those unaware of that nature.

There are two categories of spells described in Shadow Conjuation: 1) DIRECT-DAMAGE ATTACKS AND SUMMONED CREATURES: "Spells that deal damage...[or] a shadow creature", and 2) INDIRECT ATTACKS AND OBJECTS: "attack [that] has a special effect other than damage...[or] shadow objects or substances".

Category 1 conjuations are 20% real. Category 2 conjuations have a 20% chance of being 100% real, and a 80% chance of being 100% not real. Those percentages go up as you specialize in this sort of thing with prestige classes and feats.

Category 1 conjuations I think would work as you describe (knowing it's 80% illusion). You're likely to make your save for those, because the level of the spell's reality is fixed in your mind.

The spells we are talking about (the ones you cast on yourself) mostly fall into category 2. They are mostly structures, transportation, concealment, and personal equipment. That means they are not "20% real". Instead, they have a 20% chance of being 100% real.

So your caster, more than anyone else, knows for certain that the thing you conjure stands a decent chance of being real. You have a reasonable suspicion that it might not be real, but you are not at the point where you can actively totally disbelieve it too easily. And as that chance creeps up to past 50% with specialized abilities, I'm thinking it would be darn hard TO disbelieve, knowing full well the odds are it will be just as real as anything else in the world.

The conjuation in these kinds of situations is akin to the cat in Schrodinger's cat theory, and you are the theoretical Schrodinger on the outside totally unsure if the "cat is alive/object is real" until your "open the box/interact with the object". The cat/object is both alive/real and dead/illusion at once. I just don't see how you can easily convince yourself that it's dead/illusion in that situation, knowing the uncertainty of your belief.

 

[Thanee]

The spells we are talking about (the ones you cast on yourself) mostly fall into category 2. They are mostly structures, transportation, concealment, and personal equipment. That means they are not "20% real". Instead, they have a 20% chance of being 100% real.

They are also only 20% real, but the game mechanics cover them in a different way, because it doesn't work well, otherwise, especially with stuff that has no numeric value at all. It's just a game mechanic and using that as an ingame explanation ('I know that something truely real comes out of it') would be metagaming (it never is truely real, only 20%; it just works that way to figure in the 20% somewhere). The 20% is also a balance factor, turning that into 100% is a good way to break the spell.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Mistwell]

They are also only 20% real, but the game mechanics cover them in a different way, because it doesn't work well, otherwise, especially with stuff that has no numeric value at all. It's just a game mechanic and using that as an ingame explanation ('I know that something truely real comes out of it') would be metagaming (it never is truely real, only 20%; it just works that way to figure in the 20% somewhere). The 20% is also a balance factor, turning that into 100% is a good way to break the spell.

Bye
Thanee

I totally disagree. You assume the second category is the game mechanic and the first is not. WHY? If shadow material is "real", then why not look at the demage reducing stuff as being the game mechanic? Particularly since it's quite vague as to what "hit points" really represent (is it your luck? Is it part dodging? Is it wearing people down? Is it actual injuries? Why would a higher level character be able to take 100 times more injuries than a lower level character?), I'd say it's more likely that the "game mechanic" part is the stuff dealing with hit point numbers that are unseen by the PC, and the "chance to be completely real" is the more likely perspective of a character.

Your character does know that something truly real comes out of it. They have specialized in knowing just that. It's what a shadow caster is all about...actually pulling real shadow material into the prime material plane to infuse their illusion spells. Sometimes it works for them, and sometimes it does not. But, I don't think the perspective is "it's only 20% real" for the character. It's all real if it works...they just are not always as sucessful as they would like to be at doing it, and are working to get better with experience.

In fact, don't you think it's metagaming that a character know a precise percentage at all?

I don't think working towards getting shadow spells to be 100% real "breaks" any mechanic (and I think that term "broken" is thrown around with far too much ease sometimes). To do it you have to devote your entire character concept to that goal, and the end result is just more flexibility in the spells you can cast at the expense of pretty much any other feats or abilities. You could become just as flexible probably using a generalized wizard devoted to the concept of spell flexibility...this is just a different way to reach that same goal. If you think it's broken, I'd love to see some examples compared to equivelent levels of generalist wizards devoted to the spell-flexibility concept.

 

[Thanee]

You assume the second category is the game mechanic and the first is not.

I don't think I said that.

In fact, don't you think it's metagaming that a character know a precise percentage at all?

Yes, of course.

I don't think working towards getting shadow spells to be 100% real "breaks" any mechanic (and I think that term "broken" is thrown around with far too much ease sometimes). To do it you have to devote your entire character concept to that goal, ...

That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about having the 20% just work like 100%, because you simply decide to ignore the other 80%.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Mistwell]

Thanee, what are you talking about? I didn't write it that way, the guys who wrote the rules did! It's right there in the rules that it has a 20% chance of being 100% real. If you don't like it, you are free to houserule it otherwise. But that is what the rule says.

I think that's why you earlier were trying to claim walls would be at 20% strength and such...that was pure houseruling. The actual spells are pretty clear that "objects and substances" are either 100% real or 100% not real, based on a percent chance. No kinda-real involved. No 20% reduction in anything that could have numbers involved with it. If you believe them, they "have normal effects", and if you disbelieve them, they have a 20% chance "of working".

 

[Thanee]

Thanee, what are you talking about? I didn't write it that way, the guys who wrote the rules did! It's right there in the rules that it has a 20% chance of being 100% real.

Yes, 20% not 100% chance to work 100%.

I think that's why you earlier were trying to claim walls would be at 20% strength and such...that was pure houseruling.

Nah, you got me wrong then... Altho, with walls it would probably work better that way, but that's not what I meant... I was speaking about simply deciding (i.e. failing your safe) that the spell is 100% real, not just 20% (or has a 20% chance to be 100% real, which is just the same thing, just working a little different).

Bye
Thanee