Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Robmansz 04-10-05, 01:11 PM	Hi there, Everyone interacting with the spelleffect gets to make a saving throw to recognize its illusory nature, failing you notice nothing. Casting a Leomund's Tiny Hut(3rd lvl spell) Shadow Evocation puzzles me. Since the caster knows it's not the real thing, would he benefit from this use of Shadow Evocation at all..? I think not but I hope you prove me wrong, please tell me what you think about this. Thx, Robmansz.
Santrilla 04-10-05, 01:21 PM	An interesting conundrum. With shadow evoc/conj, I've always instinctively ruled that the caster can 'willingly believe' his own shadow spells. Presumably, you can willingly fail any saving throw. I haven't read an official ruling to that effect, though.
Captain Casualty 04-10-05, 01:32 PM	There is in the description of Shadow evocation this line If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is one-fifth as strong (if applicable) or only 20% likely to occur Maybe it could be interpreted as only having a 20% chance of affecting the caster. This could leave the caster being the only person who has to stand in the rain.... :evillaugh However without the description of LTH too hand I am sure that there is some sort of entry about the caster not being allowed to leave the hut. This leads to the even more pleasant possibility of the caster standing in the middle of a field getting rained on whilst his more gullible party members all go to sleep next to a comfy fire. :clap: This just keeps getting better. You dont even have to fudge the rolls. The caster is only going to get the benefit of this casting one time in five :dancin: A few occasions like this and this headache of a spell will probably start being used for its actual purpose....
Santrilla 04-10-05, 01:48 PM	Hmm, let's play the quoting game. Shadow Evocation You tap energy from the Plane of Shadow to cast a quasi-real, illusory version of a sorcerer or wizard evocation spell of 4th level or lower. (For a spell with more than one level, use the best one applicable to you.) ... Nondamaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect. ... Objects automatically succeed on their Will saves against this spell. And, from the magic section of the PHB... Shadow A shadow spell creates something that is partially real from extradimensional energy. Such illusions can have real effects. Damage dealt by a shadow illusion is real. Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief ) Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion. A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline. A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus. And finally, from later in the Magic section: Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality. Presumably, then, you can voluntarily give up your disbelief saving throw unless presented with proof that the illusion is unreal. Which means you, and anyone else in the tiny hut, can happily accept it as real, and happily shelter within. Also, because it's not a damaging spell, the 20% reality likelihood doesn't apply.
Captain Casualty 04-10-05, 02:04 PM	Hmm, let's play the quoting game. And, from the magic section of the PHB... And finally, from later in the Magic section: Presumably, then, you can voluntarily give up your disbelief saving throw unless presented with proof that the illusion is unreal. Which means you, and anyone else in the tiny hut, can happily accept it as real, and happily shelter within. Also, because it's not a damaging spell, the 20% reality likelihood doesn't apply. Oh god how embarrassing. Yep thats exactly what it says. Just got so caught up in the humor of that potential situation did not read the rest of the text. So sue me. Actually no just ignore me. As an aside it has always struck me as odd that the caster is allowed to believe in his own illusions.
Santrilla 04-10-05, 02:17 PM	Oh god how embarrassing. Yep thats exactly what it says. Just got so caught up in the humor of that potential situation did not read the rest of the text. So sue me. Actually no just ignore me. As an aside it has always struck me as odd that the caster is allowed to believe in his own illusions. Hehe, no sweat. I had to do a decent bit of research to realise that myself. And yeah, it strikes me as odd too. I suppose it's some kind of zen, "there is no spoon spell" thing.
djinni 04-10-05, 02:24 PM	As an aside it has always struck me as odd that the caster is allowed to believe in his own illusions. Think of it like this... "I realize in my logical educated mind that in this fantasy the things I see, touch, taste, and otherwise sense, are in fact not real but I believe in them, with my uneducated inner child that they are real and I am happy..." suspension of disbelief...you watch a movie and get all into it, you know it's fake but you are caught up in the moment.
Captain Casualty 04-10-05, 02:37 PM	Think of it like this... "I realize in my logical educated mind that in this fantasy the things I see, touch, taste, and otherwise sense, are in fact not real but I believe in them, with my uneducated inner child that they are real and I am happy..." I am sure you call it that. I think doctors call it munchausens disease. Not sure about that spelling though. My concern is not that he wants to believe it, my concern is that he does believe it. ie he can so disconnect himself from reality that his own actions do not affect his perception of it. Such a persons grip on reality must be described as tenous at best.
Captain Casualty 04-10-05, 02:56 PM	Presumably, then, you can voluntarily give up your disbelief saving throw unless presented with proof that the illusion is unreal. Which means you, and anyone else in the tiny hut, can happily accept it as real, and happily shelter within. Thinking about that surely the knowledge that he created the illusion should be enough proof for him to know that this is an illusion? If so does that mean that the caster is the only person who cannot voluntarily fail his saving throw? Or to put it another way is the caster of an illusion the only person who cannot possibly believe in that illusion? That was meant to be reductio ad absurdum yet when I read it actually that makes a lot of sense. Would the only possible way that an illusionary caster could believe there own illusion be to get MPD? In 1984 George Orwell refers to "doublethink" simaltaneously believing two contradictory things. My head hurt then as well. There is a lot of philosophical and physcological debate going on in my head here just so i can make this caster stand in the rain. Do i need to go back to counselling? Thinking about it I would suggest that unless a caster has some sort of mental disorder they can never believe there own illusions since they have proof that it is not real since they did it. Have to think over any resulting conundrums as a result of that. BTW feel free to shoot down my logic, had to apologise once before on this thread so whats another time?
Santrilla 04-10-05, 03:18 PM	Thinking about that surely the knowledge that he created the illusion should be enough proof for him to know that this is an illusion? If so does that mean that the caster is the only person who cannot voluntarily fail his saving throw? You know, you make a very good point. Perhaps this is indeed the only situation where a caster cannot give up his saving throw. To requote: A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. Another conundrum: what happens when an illusion spell (let's say Phantasmal Killer) is reflected back at you? Do you automatically succeed because you know it's a spell you originally cast? Or do you have to re-roll because it's a new version of the spell, one where the terrifying image has been changed to reflect your own fears rather than the other person's?
Denizen Kane 04-10-05, 03:32 PM	A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. Well, can someone please enlighten me as to the difference between a real illusion and an unreal illusion? As for reality, it's just a bundle of self-delusions anyway, so why make a big deal out of it? :smirk:
Yue Ryong 04-10-05, 05:04 PM	Is that a touch of personal bias I hear? The difference between a real illusion and an unreal illusion is whether or not you believe in it. If you believe in it, it's a real illusion, if you don't it's an unreal one. Simple, no? I think that thats an interesting point with regards to the phantasmal killer and I'd personally rule that it depends on whether or not the caster is aware that the spell has been returned at him.
Robmansz 04-10-05, 05:26 PM	Hi all, my group debated about all this for about half an hour and then the DM ruled that if the sorcerer failed his saving throw, comfort would be his share. I refused to have my PC disbelieve a spell he himself cast knowing it to be a quasi-real, illusory version of a 3rd lvl evocation spell. What started out as a practical idea turned out to be a noble gesture towards my group, the "alone in the rain" scenario did indeed take place. ;) As for the Phantasmal Killer, i say your own demon comes for you and the spell would affect you as it would any you cast it on. Thx all, Robmansz
stamhaven 04-10-05, 05:29 PM	The critcal part to consider with rain and the hut is not weather the people think the shadow roof will protect them from the rain but weather the rain does. For that refer to the shodow evocation/conjuration description where it says objects always counted as sucseeding their will save and what that means for non damaging effects (no effect). from the SRD Shadow evocation description:... Nondamaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect. Objects automatically succeed on their Will saves against this spell. Same goes for wind wall and arrows (doesn't matter if the person protected belives only that the arrows don't care can pass right through). what you consider other spells is another judgement call but I'd count them like objects, myself for purposes of applying SE to Contingency (ie. no effect). It's definitely a DM call to decide if the caster can disbelieve (I fall under the camp that say they can't convince themselves to even have a save unless they're insane and think they're a conjurer). But that only matters for evocations that afect the subject directly (like most damaging evocations).
Denizen Kane 04-10-05, 05:45 PM	The critcal part to consider with rain and the hut is not weather the people think the shadow roof will protect them from the rain but weather the rain does. For that refer to the shodow evocation/conjuration description where it says objects always counted as sucseeding their will save and what that means for non damaging effects (no effect). Hold the phone! So you are suggesting that should I, a sorcerer, be in the path of a rather large avalanche, I could use Shadow Evocation to create a thick wall that, because the boulders do not actively "disbelieve" in the wall, saves me from pulverization? Cool. :D
Santrilla 04-10-05, 05:51 PM	Hold the phone! So you are suggesting that should I, a sorcerer, be in the path of a rather large avalanche, I could use Shadow Evocation to create a thick wall that, because the boulders do not actively "disbelieve" in the wall, saves me from pulverization? Cool. :D No, you've got that the wrong way round. Shadow Evocation would be ineffective, because the boulders are objects and automatically 'disbelieve' the wall, and therefore keep rolling through it. Sorcerer pancake, I'm afraid.
Denizen Kane 04-10-05, 06:05 PM	OK...I misread the previous post. But anyway, I was being facetious... I know, I know..I should be more obvious about it...
Robmansz 04-11-05, 03:10 AM	After reading all this it's still not clear to me whether a sorcerer benefits from a Leomunds Tiny Hut cast via a Shadow Evocation. from the SRD Shadow evocation description:... Nondamaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect. Objects automatically succeed on their Will saves against this spell. i would say the creation of the hut is a non-damaging effect, the caster however always disbelieves. Then what is the spell effect..? Surely not a hut which is physically there if you fail to disbelieve, but the rain falls right through the roof because objects always make their will save..? If weather is considered nondamaging, what about a (natural) lightning strike, or fierce winds..? Robmansz (not there yet)
stamhaven 04-11-05, 07:46 AM	The issue about non damaging vs damagin is for what the shadow spell itself does, not for effects that target it. A shadow wall of force should have no effect on a lightning bolt (though if the caster of the LB believed they probably wouldn't do it since they'd believe it would be blocked). Tiny Hut would be handled nearly exactly like a wall of force if you believe it then you think it's there and would probably even feel it if you touched it (either 20% as strong or 20% chance to meet a "solid" made out of the shadow stuff depending on the ruling of the DM). Dispite any beliefe in the wall or hut wind, arrows, spells would treet them as not there at all. Depending on the circumstances and the believer's knowledge of the spell the DM could easily rule rain and wind as incontravertable proof that the roof and walls as not being real for those under the solid seeming roof getting rained on. Barring wind or rain I'd say a believer would think that the temerature was at least 20% warmer/closer to 70 degrees inside there (or a 20% chance to feel like it's 70 degrees).
Robmansz 04-12-05, 06:47 AM	Thx every-one. Matter resolved. Robmansz :)
Greyman 04-12-05, 07:26 AM	After reading all this it's still not clear to me whether a sorcerer benefits from a Leomunds Tiny Hut cast via a Shadow Evocation.The interior of the hut can be dimly illuminated at will, while the walls appear opaque from the outside. I'd say that successfully disbelieving in the hut means that, from the outside, the dome becomes a translucent shadow superimposed over the contents (as for the effect of Shadowy Conjuration when disbelieved). To disbelieve, however, an observer must first interact with the hut. So, at the very least, a Shadow Evoked Tiny Hut provides a nice nightlight with cover.
Robmansz 04-13-05, 05:08 AM	Casting Shatter or Pyrotechnics through Shadow Evocation is also useless. Objects always make their will saves. My conclusion is that Shadow Evocation isn't as usefull as i first thought it to be. The only "things" that can be affected by this spell are those that have to make will saves, thus mostly (only?) creatures. Guess i'm stuck with it now. Robmansz
Santrilla 04-13-05, 05:27 AM	Shadow Evoc and Shadow Conj are really nothing more than spell-substitutes for illusionists. They work okay for things like summoning and damage spells (even with the 20% thing), but they fall apart a bit on the 'utility' spells.
stamhaven 04-13-05, 07:42 AM	That you don't even need to know or even have the mimiced spells on your spell list is a huge deal, allowing sorcerers and specialists tremendous blasting flexibility with one spell known/prepared. Allowing effective access to barred spell schools is another strong aspect of this line of spells, even allowing illusion focus to help DC's of conjuration and evocation spells.
dantedarkstar 04-13-05, 08:22 AM	Actually, it gets more interesting with Shadow Evocation mimicking Contingency... or Shadow Conjuration: Phantom Steed. Those two DO boil down to whether caster can believe his own spells, or not. Or Shadow Conjuration: Wall of Stone shaped as a bridge ("This is the test of faith ! Those who believe will prevail, those who don't will fall into the lava pits below." :) )
Robmansz 04-13-05, 09:19 AM	That you don't even need to know or even have the mimiced spells on your spell list is a huge deal, allowing sorcerers and specialists tremendous blasting flexibility with one spell known/prepared. Allowing effective access to barred spell schools is another strong aspect of this line of spells, even allowing illusion focus to help DC's of conjuration and evocation spells. It is still a great spell ofcourse, especially for Sorcerers, but i'm still experiencing a cold shower aftereffect. I was really looking forward to a great increase in my utility Spells. Shattering someones chair or the chain of a drawbridge. Very nice. ;) Robmansz
Robmansz 04-13-05, 09:28 AM	Actually, it gets more interesting with Shadow Evocation mimicking Contingency... or Shadow Conjuration: Phantom Steed. Those two DO boil down to whether caster can believe his own spells, or not. Or Shadow Conjuration: Wall of Stone shaped as a bridge ("This is the test of faith ! Those who believe will prevail, those who don't will fall into the lava pits below." :) ) Hmmm, i think the caster won't be using the bridge. I understand the part of objects always making their will save but what happens to the caster is still a matter of debate, I still hold with my previous statement: my group debated about all this for about half an hour and then the DM ruled that if the sorcerer failed his saving throw, comfort would be his share. I refused to have my PC disbelieve a spell he himself cast knowing it to be a quasi-real, illusory version of a 3rd lvl evocation spell. What started out as a practical idea turned out to be a noble gesture towards my group, the "alone in the rain" scenario did indeed take place. Robmansz
tarkin 04-13-05, 10:03 AM	I generally decide to be creative when ruling on those kinds of things. For example, when I use a Shadow conjuration spell to do the Leomund's chest spell, it stores the chest on the Plane of SHADOW, and durations/size are reduced to 60% of normal,etc. etc. etc. For a Mount, I usually feel the level increase is sufficient to make it fair.
mbfu3k 04-13-05, 11:40 AM	Or Shadow Conjuration: Wall of Stone shaped as a bridge ("This is the test of faith ! Those who believe will prevail, those who don't will fall into the lava pits below." :) ) 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. A shadow conjured Wall of Stone would have 60% of the hit points and hardness of a regular wall of stone, regardless of whether someone interacting with the wall makes their save. (60% instead of 20% because Wall of Stone is a 5th level spell and so requires Shadow Conjuration, Greater.) Shadow objects or substances have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they are 20% likely to work. A creature that interacts with a shadow wall of stone and makes their save will recognize it as only partially real, and thus will realize that it is weaker than a normal wall of stone. If the wall of stone were somehow, say, poisonous, the poison would have a 60% chance of affecting that creature. However, even if they were unaffected by the poison, the wall would still not let them pass. The "20% likely to work" clause is for when you create substances that deal damage or otherwise cause effects. For instance, if you duplicate a Major Creation spell and create some alchemist's fire or black lotus extract. The objects/substances are still there, they just may not "work" (ie, they may be inert). In other words, shadow conjured objects work just like shadow conjured creatures. They always have 20-80% hitpoints & AC/hardness, but their "special attacks" are 20-80% likely to work unless the save is failed, in which case they're 100% likely to work. At least, that's how I interpret it.
phizuol 04-13-05, 12:32 PM	I think we are getting off track as we are discussing shadow evocation, not shadow conjuration. Specifically the point: Nondamaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect. This is where the spell breaks down. To use the simplist example, the spell "Light." A nondamaging evocation spell. According to the spell description if you believe then you can use the Light spell created by Shadow Evocation to see in a dark cave. If you disbelieve then you are covered in total darkness. Seems a little silly, but that's RAW. The question is can the caster choose to believe in the Shadow Evocation spell even though saving throws are not normally allowed to be made when the target knows the effect is not real? Personally I take it that the spell IS real. It is "quasi-real" but there is still 20% real stuff in that spell. Therefor it cannot be proven unreal to the caster and there is a saving throw which can be voluntarily failed. Of course it can be argued whether "quasi-real" qualifies more as real or unreal, but there is no real way to conclusively debate the logic there so I'll stick to my personal opinion. =D If you or your DM disagree with me then there is always the Suggestion spell that you can cast on yourself. Then you can voluntarily fail the Suggestion saving throw and suggest to yourself that your Light spell is indeed very real and lights up a room quite nicely. Now the caster's proof is gone and a saving throw must be made (and voluntarily failed.)
mbfu3k 04-13-05, 02:32 PM	Nondamaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect. This is where the spell breaks down. To use the simplist example, the spell "Light." A nondamaging evocation spell. According to the spell description if you believe then you can use the Light spell created by Shadow Evocation to see in a dark cave. If you disbelieve then you are covered in total darkness. Seems a little silly, but that's RAW. Not necessarily. Note: Light Evocation [Light] ... Target: Object touched ... This spell causes an object to glow like a torch... The effect of the spell is to cause the object to glow; it is the object itself that "creates" the light, the spell just induces that property. Thus, the object touched is the only thing that gets a save vs. the Shadow Evocation. And since objects automatically make their saves, the spell simply fails. No light for anyone.
Zitchas 04-13-05, 03:07 PM	Then there's always the fun situation of all the gullible folks believing they're inside the hut, while instead they're actually sitting in the rain. In which case it's the caster with the last laugh, since he at least knows he's still out in the weather and thus takes proper precautions. Likewise, a lot of not so gullible folks wandering by get to look quizically at the odd bunch sitting around without their cloaks on in the rain gettintg soaked. Probably be fairly amusing.
solbergb 04-13-05, 06:33 PM	The shadow conjuration tree is actually easier to adjudicate. The physical objects created by the spell are 20% real. So a Greater Shadow Conjuration Wall of Iron is a normal wall of iron with 20% of the hitpoints, the leomund's hut is also able to keep the rain off but is a lot more fragile when hit by a boulder, etc. Stuff like glitterdust which is less clear works 20% of the time, ditto mage armor. With evocations they assumed things like stunning from shout or half move from ice storm or whatever as secondary effects of the evocations. They do not appear to have thought about the force spells (tenser's disc, leomund's hut, wall of force) or some of the wall spells (wall of ice) or any of the light spells and their interactions with inanimate objects. You can go several ways on these when trying to make sense of it. The easiest is 20% of the power when it makes sense, 1/5 of the time when it does not. So a Leomund's hut would be blown down by 10 mile an hour winds, and keep temperature stable at narrower ranges, but more or less work as expected. Tenser's disk lifts 1/5 the stuff. Shatter has 1/5 the weight limit. Light illuminates 1/5 the area. But a wall of force "flickers". Or all of them could work at full power and "flicker", making a tenser's disk or leomund's hut pretty useless. Were I to houserule it, I'd make "structures" with durations caused by evocations to behave like shadow conjuration, and shadow conjuration effects that behave more like evocation secondary effects just not work, instead of being 20% on, 80% off. But it does mean the DM has to rule on case by case basis a lot. Sometimes it leads to rather cool stuff. A wall of fire is opaque to those who fail the save, but transparent to those who make it. One-way visibility can be kinda cool.