Contingency and Greater Shadow Evocation [Archive] - Wizards Community

Contingency and Greater Shadow Evocation [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
phaedron
10-19-03, 11:29 AM In my campaign last week, a sorcerer tried to cast a contingency via a greater shadow evocation and I ruled that this was not valid. The description of shadow evo says that the spell creates an illusion from the plane of shadow and it didn't seem right that someone could cast an illusion on themself.

What do others think?
Sacrusha
10-19-03, 11:38 AM It is perfectly valid with the rules and there is also no in game reason why it shouldn't function. The player needs an 8th level spell to emulate a 6th level spell, after all. If you really are against it no matter what, you can say the contingency is only 60% likely to come into effect, that still won't be fair, but it is better than nothing.

And could you explain, why someone shouldn't be able to cast an illusion on oneself?
tarkin
10-19-03, 12:19 PM It definitely should work and it definitely should have the 60% chance of failure.

Why would you think that would not be fair? The spell is 60% effective. period.
Sacrusha
10-19-03, 01:36 PM "Why would you think that would not be fair?"

Because it would not be as the spell is written.

"The spell is 60% effective. period."

Wrong. It is 60% effective against disbelievers (those who make their saves). The Sorcerer would be stupid to disbelieve it.
Shatteredtower
10-19-03, 04:04 PM Originally posted by Sacrusha
"The spell is 60% effective. period."

Wrong. It is 60% effective against disbelievers (those who make their saves). The Sorcerer would be stupid to disbelieve it.

And he would have to be insane or at least have the willpower of a creative deity to believe it.

Seriously, trying to believe something you know to be an illusion (because you created it) is even harder than trying to complete a task in which the first instruction is "Do not think of elephants."
phaedron
10-19-03, 10:15 PM how would you arbitrate a 60% effective contingency spell? I don't know how to do that.

I haven't mentioned which spell goes off when the contingency triggers because I don't think it's relevant. That spell would be 100% effective if I allowed the contingency to work.

I still have troubles with the concept, of Shadow Evo'd Contingency. The caster would automatically disbelieve, and I think this spell doesn't function unless it functions 100%. It's not like a damage spell.
Dracoulis The Phyrexian
10-19-03, 10:22 PM Perhaps everyone should read over Shadow Evocation again. It specifically says that non-damaging effects, if saved against, have NO EFFECT.

Seeing as it's not a damaging effect, it will have no effect if failed. Now, the real question is whether one should be able to voluntarily fail a disbelief save. By the book, nothing prevents it. Logically, it makes no sense at all.

So, make up your mind.
Bopple
10-19-03, 10:29 PM Actually, disbelieved nondamaging shadow evoc. and gr. shadow evoc. do nothing in 3.5.

In 3.0, it stated disbelieved nondamaging SE did nothing, but it stated GSE was 40% likely to work.
But in 3.5, the statement about effect of nondamaging GSE part is gone. Though I suspect it's simply a mistake-omission while updating GSE.
Yankee
10-19-03, 11:19 PM Interesting problem. I actually agree with your call, it doesn't seem a very solid use of the spell meta-physically. (no pun intended) I think I will now do something in my games I've been toying with for a while - changing contingency to a universal spell.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
phaedron 10-19-03, 11:29 AM	In my campaign last week, a sorcerer tried to cast a contingency via a greater shadow evocation and I ruled that this was not valid. The description of shadow evo says that the spell creates an illusion from the plane of shadow and it didn't seem right that someone could cast an illusion on themself. What do others think?
Sacrusha 10-19-03, 11:38 AM	It is perfectly valid with the rules and there is also no in game reason why it shouldn't function. The player needs an 8th level spell to emulate a 6th level spell, after all. If you really are against it no matter what, you can say the contingency is only 60% likely to come into effect, that still won't be fair, but it is better than nothing. And could you explain, why someone shouldn't be able to cast an illusion on oneself?
tarkin 10-19-03, 12:19 PM	It definitely should work and it definitely should have the 60% chance of failure. Why would you think that would not be fair? The spell is 60% effective. period.
Sacrusha 10-19-03, 01:36 PM	"Why would you think that would not be fair?" Because it would not be as the spell is written. "The spell is 60% effective. period." Wrong. It is 60% effective against disbelievers (those who make their saves). The Sorcerer would be stupid to disbelieve it.
Shatteredtower 10-19-03, 04:04 PM	Originally posted by Sacrusha "The spell is 60% effective. period." Wrong. It is 60% effective against disbelievers (those who make their saves). The Sorcerer would be stupid to disbelieve it. And he would have to be insane or at least have the willpower of a creative deity to believe it. Seriously, trying to believe something you know to be an illusion (because you created it) is even harder than trying to complete a task in which the first instruction is "Do not think of elephants."
phaedron 10-19-03, 10:15 PM	how would you arbitrate a 60% effective contingency spell? I don't know how to do that. I haven't mentioned which spell goes off when the contingency triggers because I don't think it's relevant. That spell would be 100% effective if I allowed the contingency to work. I still have troubles with the concept, of Shadow Evo'd Contingency. The caster would automatically disbelieve, and I think this spell doesn't function unless it functions 100%. It's not like a damage spell.
Dracoulis The Phyrexian 10-19-03, 10:22 PM	Perhaps everyone should read over Shadow Evocation again. It specifically says that non-damaging effects, if saved against, have NO EFFECT. Seeing as it's not a damaging effect, it will have no effect if failed. Now, the real question is whether one should be able to voluntarily fail a disbelief save. By the book, nothing prevents it. Logically, it makes no sense at all. So, make up your mind.
Bopple 10-19-03, 10:29 PM	Actually, disbelieved nondamaging shadow evoc. and gr. shadow evoc. do nothing in 3.5. In 3.0, it stated disbelieved nondamaging SE did nothing, but it stated GSE was 40% likely to work. But in 3.5, the statement about effect of nondamaging GSE part is gone. Though I suspect it's simply a mistake-omission while updating GSE.
Yankee 10-19-03, 11:19 PM	Interesting problem. I actually agree with your call, it doesn't seem a very solid use of the spell meta-physically. (no pun intended) I think I will now do something in my games I've been toying with for a while - changing contingency to a universal spell.