Shadow Spells and Banned Schools

[Zook Murning]

If an illusionist has banned either evocation or conjuration as one of their banned schools, is he still able to replicate Evocation and Conjuration spells using Shadow Conjuration and Shadow Evocation?

Many Thanks :smallbiggrin:

[Gullintanni]

Yes. The issue at hand is that the Wizard has banned Conjuration and Evocation. The effects created by the Shadow spells are in fact Illusion spells, that simply emulate the effects of the banned schools.

This is one of the reasons that banning evocation is so easy. Because one or two spells from the Illusion school can duplicate the majority of Evocation's effects...albeit to a lesser degree in the majority of cases. Conjuration should never ever be banned. In fact, if there's one school you SHOULD specialize in, make it Conjuration.

The three easiest schools to dump are, in this order, Evocation, Enchantment, Necromancy.

[Godskook]

The three easiest schools to dump are, in this order, Evocation, Enchantment, Necromancy.

Enchantment is actually far easier to dump than Evocation, cause:
1.Its spells are more heavily defended against than any other school.
2.Being [mind-affecting], there's a host of things the school doesn't work on anyway, including everyone who uses mind blank.
3.Shadow spells, outside shadowcrafting, aren't nearly as good as the fanboys make them out to be. Y'know, between the superfluous will save, the SR:Yes nature that wouldn't effect some Evocations, and worst of all, spending high level slots to get these watered down Evocations that an Evoker was casting for 2 levels(or more) already.
4.Enchantments, outside thralling purposes, don't really bring even as much unique mechanical options as Evocations do.

That being said, on a scale of 1-100, I'm really only nitpicking about a 3-point difference here.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

3.Shadow spells, outside shadowcrafting, aren't nearly as good as the fanboys make them out to be. Y'know, between the superfluous will save, the SR:Yes nature that wouldn't effect some Evocations, and worst of all, spending high level slots to get these watered down Evocations that an Evoker was casting for 2 levels(or more) already.

Generally, the good Evocations you'd want that can't be duplicated by Conjuration are utility spells or buffs, which renders the extra save/SR irrelevant. Continual flame (no target), shatter (nonmagical objects don't get saves/SR), wind wall (arrows don't get saves/SR), and others are just fine to replicate with shadow illusions; it's the fireballs and such which your orbs and summoned critters can cover for just fine that are subject to those penalties.

[peacenlove]

Also at Pathfinder there are no banned schools anymore, only restricted ones (you can prepare spells from opposition schools they just take twice as many slots, and that restriction is only a feat away from being lifted). Seeing that necromancy has many "downtime" (ie. spells that you don't use at a daily basis such as animate dead or create undead) spells and contigency lasts days/level, it is easier to select evocation/necromancy as an opposition school.

[RndmNumGen]

Also at Pathfinder there are no banned schools anymore, only restricted ones (you can prepare spells from opposition schools they just take twice as many slots, and that restriction is only a feat away from being lifted). Seeing that necromancy has many "downtime" (ie. spells that you don't use at a daily basis such as animate dead or create undead) spells and contigency lasts days/level, it is easier to select evocation/necromancy as an opposition school.

What feat is that?

[Yuki Akuma]

If an illusionist has banned either evocation or conjuration as one of their banned schools, is he still able to replicate Evocation and Conjuration spells using Shadow Conjuration and Shadow Evocation?

Many Thanks :smallbiggrin:

They're Illusion spells. You can cast Illusion spells.

This is what makes Shadowcraft Mage so great. She can cast any Evocation or Conjuration (Summon or Creation) spell with her bonus Illusion spell slots.

[Godskook]

Generally, the good Evocations you'd want that can't be duplicated by Conjuration are utility spells or buffs, which renders the extra save/SR irrelevant. Continual flame (no target), shatter (nonmagical objects don't get saves/SR), wind wall (arrows don't get saves/SR), and others are just fine to replicate with shadow illusions; it's the fireballs and such which your orbs and summoned critters can cover for just fine that are subject to those penalties.

Shatter - According to the spell description in the SRD, *EVERYTHING* gets a save already, but more to the point, attended objects(which is one of the handier uses of Shatter) still get them via their attending character.

Contingency - There's no guideline for how to adjudicate how this works when shadowed, but a semi-real teleport sounds *PAINFUL*.

Wind Wall - Is there really a rule that says arrows in flight count as unattended? I know I'd rule the opposite. Magical arrows are entitled to save throws.

Continual Flame - It doesn't matter that the original spell offers no save, nor does it target anything relevant. This is Illusion, and people get saves simply for interacting with it.

Buffs - The SR:Yes nature makes buffing a character with SR problematic, which in turn limits combat options or absorbs actions, which is a non-negligible consideration(But which buffs, in particular, are you speaking of).

Any other spells you think work "just fine" with shadow evocation?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Shatter - According to the spell description in the SRD, *EVERYTHING* gets a save already, but more to the point, attended objects(which is one of the handier uses of Shatter) still get them via their attending character.

I'm fairly sure that save only applies to attended objects, seeing as unattended nonmagical objects don't have a Will save to my knowledge.


Contingency - There's no guideline for how to adjudicate how this works when shadowed, but a semi-real teleport sounds *PAINFUL*.

Note that you can always voluntarily fail a save, the whole "But it's your own illusion!" argument notwithstanding.


Wind Wall - Is there really a rule that says arrows in flight count as unattended? I know I'd rule the opposite. Magical arrows are entitled to save throws.

If you drop an object, it's unattended; why would an arrow fired from a bow count as attended? And yes, magical arrows are entitled to saves, but that doesn't make the spell useless against normal arrows. At the very least, it's good for the usual scenario of wizard casts fly, fighter pulls out backup (nonmagical) bow and (nonmagical) arrows, wizard casts wind wall.


Continual Flame - It doesn't matter that the original spell offers no save, nor does it target anything relevant. This is Illusion, and people get saves simply for interacting with it.

And "interaction" for an illusion requires physical interaction; you don't get a save against a silent image merely for seeing it. If you just want a permanent magical light, an illusory continual flame works just as well as a real one.


Buffs - The SR:Yes nature makes buffing a character with SR problematic, which in turn limits combat options or absorbs actions, which is a non-negligible consideration(But which buffs, in particular, are you speaking of).

I was thinking primarily of contingency and fire shield, since I can only access the SRD at the moment. There are probably more in splatbooks that I can't think of right now.

Also, note that self-buffing works just fine:


A creature’s spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities.


Any other spells you think work "just fine" with shadow evocation?

Seeing as I only looked at the level 1 and 2 spells in the SRD, I'm sure there are plenty more out there. :smallwink:

[Gullintanni]

Enchantment is actually far easier to dump than Evocation, cause:
1.Its spells are more heavily defended against than any other school.
2.Being [mind-affecting], there's a host of things the school doesn't work on anyway, including everyone who uses mind blank.
3.Shadow spells, outside shadowcrafting, aren't nearly as good as the fanboys make them out to be. Y'know, between the superfluous will save, the SR:Yes nature that wouldn't effect some Evocations, and worst of all, spending high level slots to get these watered down Evocations that an Evoker was casting for 2 levels(or more) already.
4.Enchantments, outside thralling purposes, don't really bring even as much unique mechanical options as Evocations do.

That being said, on a scale of 1-100, I'm really only nitpicking about a 3-point difference here.

Enchantment is sub-optimal for sure, but I really LIKE Enchantment as a school. From a fluff perspective, I don't see Evocation being particularly necessary for the archetypal wizard, while Enchantment is. That's a subjective argument though, that one really can't win.

From a mechanical perspective, while Enchantment is generally well protected against, the things it can do as a school aren't particularly well replicated by other schools. They may be limited in application, but still, they're the only spells that cover their niche WELL. Illusion is the second string version of Enchantment, but all they really have in common is that they're both useless against mostly the same things. When I think 'Dominator', I'm thinking enchantments all the way. You just can't mindrape without enchanting.

Evocation is an easy dump not because it's weaker, but because it's superfluous. Between Shadow Evocations and Conjuration, its effects are replicated in their entirety. With Shadowcraft Mages, your Shadow Evocations are actually BETTER than their Evocation based counterparts. Ultimately, if you got absolutely no benefit out of banning a school of magic, banning Evocation still wouldn't register as having lost anything.

If one were to discuss banned schools in the context of ships, banning Evocation would result in a hole that would be completely patched over by Conjuration and Illusion. Banning Enchantment, on the other hand, would yield a hole so small that any water you take on will not be threatening to your seafaring capability. But it would still leave a hole.

You don't NEED either school. But only Enchantment does what Enchantment does. Even if doing what Enchantment does is weak.

EDIT: Though I do agree...outside of Shadowcraft twinkery, Shadow Evocations are not nearly as good as they'd need to be. Conjuration picks up the slack though.

[HalfDragonCube]

If you eat Shadow Conjuration generated Create Food and Water for about 10 years, would you be entirely made of shadow-stuff?

That means that a character could be dispelled. And would have to make will saves versus disbelieving themselves.

[Yuki Akuma]

If you eat Shadow Conjuration generated Create Food and Water for about 10 years, would you be entirely made of shadow-stuff?

That means that a character could be dispelled. And would have to make will saves versus disbelieving themselves.

Protip: Shadow-stuff actually exists. You cannot go to the Plane of Shadow and dispel people who happen to be natives.


You don't NEED either school. But only Enchantment does what Enchantment does. Even if doing what Enchantment does is weak.

Not really true - Illusions can do Mind-Affecting, and Conjuration can summon or call creatures that can do Mind-Affecting.

Really, Enchantment is the one school which you can safely drop as long as you have Conjuration or Illusion.

[ericgrau]

^ But are they magical?

IMO the best core evocations are: light, magic missile, flaming sphere, fireball, resilient sphere, wall of ice, wall of force, forcecage, contingency, delayed blast fireball. You can shadow evocation light, and that's it. Whereas every single good spell above level 0 is horrendously bad once you shadow it or can't be shadowed. Wall of force becomes a level 6+ wall of maybe, and etc. Likewise half of the conjurations are no save and become horrible once you shadow them and add a save. Or even the ones with a save are pretty bad once you allow 2 saves. Basically shadow should never be used on combat spells if you can help it, which pretty much limits you to some minor utility. The other main function for the spells seems to be theoretical bragging rights for illusionists, using the I can do anything you can do* argument. I wouldn't dare play with those spells in an actual game, unless making a utility monkey.

*except I do it poorly and/or at high cost, some restrictions apply, see stores for details

[Gullintanni]

Not really true - Illusions can do Mind-Affecting, and Conjuration can summon or call creatures that can do Mind-Affecting.

Really, Enchantment is the one school which you can safely drop as long as you have Conjuration or Illusion.

Mind-Affecting A is not the same as Mind-Affecting B

Illusion - Weird (Mind-Affecting, Save vs Death)
Enchantment - Monstrous Thrall (Mind-Affecting, Save vs Enslaved)

You can not achieve enslavement with Illusion. Only Enchantment does that. If that's what you want to do, or if you want that option available, then (insofar as spellcasting is concerned) you must have access to Enchantment.

By contrast, every aspect of Evocation can be replicated with Conjuration and Illusion. Moreover, being able to Conjure creatures that can perform enchantments really isn't an argument. By that token, you can discard every school of magic, except conjuration, because you can just conjure up something to do your casting for you.

Per Wall of Force and Forcecage - these are the only two losses that hurt at all...but they're unnecessary. Most of the things you'd want to use these on are equally vulnerable to Wall of Stone or Wall of Iron...plus those still work in an AMF.

Shadow Evocation - Contingency + Teleport will do everything you need to. Since you can voluntarily fail saves, there's no reason for this not to be sufficient.

[ericgrau]

Wall of force is larger than stone, indestructible and has no save. Most dms might not know it, but one good swing from a beefy monster will take down a wall of stone. With its smaller area it's often very difficult to wall off a monster and yet get it out of reach to deny him a save. People tend to say "Well you only lose spell X" but most of the time the X they choose is a different spell b/c there are in fact several. There's one all star on most levels which is painful to lose and impossible to effectively substitute with a shadow spell.

[HalfDragonCube]

Wall of force is larger than stone, indestructible and has no save. Most dms might not know it, but one good swing from a beefy monster will take down a wall of stone. With its smaller area it's often very difficult to wall off a monster and yet get it out of reach to deny him a save. People tend to say "Well you only lose spell X" but most of the time the X they choose is a different spell b/c there are in fact several. There's one all star on most levels which is painful to lose and impossible to effectively substitute will a shadow spell.

Shadow evoked Wall of Force has some interesting uses.

It can be used as a safety catch for cliffs. Make one about halfway down. On it put a cushion and a small-print sign saying 'The flooring is not real; please watch your step'.

[ericgrau]

Lol ya there are utility options and I'd consider using them as side things in a build. Just not the main focus for combat. Wall of forces need to be vertical though, try ice or stone instead. Ice is the best utility wall in general btw (though destructible).

There is some point to all this besides thread derailment: If you get shadow spells figure out utility things to do with them.

[HalfDragonCube]

Lol ya there are utility options and I'd consider using them as side things in a build. Just not the main focus for combat. Wall of forces need to be vertical though, try ice or stone instead. Ice is the best utility wall in general btw (though destructible).

There is some point to all this besides thread derailment: If you get shadow spells figure out utility things to do with them.

How about shadow blockade? You can have your warblades fail their will saves and use it normally, or have them try to pass their saves and walk around as if it isn't there.

[dextercorvia]

You can not achieve enslavement with Illusion. Only Enchantment does that. If that's what you want to do, or if you want that option available, then (insofar as spellcasting is concerned) you must have access to Enchantment.

Simulacrum would like to have a word with you.


At all times the simulacrum remains under your absolute command.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Simulacrum would like to have a word with you.

To be fair, duplication of a creature and enslavement of a creature are not exactly the same thing, flavor-wise or mechanically, even if the end result of "I have an X under my control and its abilities at my disposal" is basically the same for both.

[dextercorvia]

To be fair, duplication of a creature and enslavement of a creature are not exactly the same thing, flavor-wise or mechanically, even if the end result of "I have an X under my control and its abilities at my disposal" is basically the same for both.

I didn't say that it enslaved the original creature. But if you want a creature under your thrall that never gets a saving throw, and still is allowed to think, it is hard to beat Simulacrum.

[Godskook]

I'm fairly sure that save only applies to attended objects, seeing as unattended nonmagical objects don't have a Will save to my knowledge.

Burden of Proof is on you, seeing as the spell in question gives them one.


Note that you can always voluntarily fail a save, the whole "But it's your own illusion!" argument notwithstanding.j

Except passing the save is what you're wanting to do for shadow contingent teleport.


If you drop an object, it's unattended; why would an arrow fired from a bow count as attended?

Because one is a free action that gives you nothing(the dagger might float for all you know), while the other is an attack roll that your PC is intentionally guiding.


And yes, magical arrows are entitled to saves, but that doesn't make the spell useless against normal arrows. At the very least, it's good for the usual scenario of wizard casts fly, fighter pulls out backup (nonmagical) bow and (nonmagical) arrows, wizard casts wind wall.

Except a shadow wind wall is at least a 5th level spell in core, which is level 9. Magical arrows are quite affordable at that level.


And "interaction" for an illusion requires physical interaction; you don't get a save against a silent image merely for seeing it. If you just want a permanent magical light, an illusory continual flame works just as well as a real one.

You're inserting wording into the rules that just isn't there:


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.

Having your vision augmented by a spell counts as an 'interaction', imho.


I was thinking primarily of contingency and fire shield, since I can only access the SRD at the moment. There are probably more in splatbooks that I can't think of right now.

Fire Shield would allow a saving throw, cutting the effectiveness down significantly.


Also, note that self-buffing works just fine:

Sure, but that wasn't my point about the SR. I actually didn't even mention self-buffing.

In any event, you've not mentioned a single spell that retains its effectiveness as a Shadow spell, and my point was, explicitly, that shadow evocation, outside shadowcrafting, is inferior to actually being able to cast the Evocations in the first place.


***STUFF***

Why did you spend your whole post trying to counter my argument with the two things I explicitly said I wasn't including in my argument? (Namely, thralling abilities of Enchantment and Shadowcrafting)

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Burden of Proof is on you, seeing as the spell in question gives them one.

It says the save is "Will (object)." What is an unattended object's Will save? If they get one, it isn't very high.


Except passing the save is what you're wanting to do for shadow contingent teleport.

No, you want to fail the save. Failing the save means it's 100% real to you, passing gets you the lower percentage.


Because one is a free action that gives you nothing(the dagger might float for all you know), while the other is an attack roll that your PC is intentionally guiding.

And that relates to an arrow being physically in your possession...how?


Except a shadow wind wall is at least a 5th level spell in core, which is level 9. Magical arrows are quite affordable at that level.

Granted, shadow-duplicated wind walls do little against focused archer characters. They're still useful, however, in the scenario I cited before, when you're facing a primary-melee character who has to pull out a backup weapon for ranged combat; seeing as most melee beatstick monsters don't have magical ranged weapons, it works just fine for them.


You're inserting wording into the rules that just isn't there:

Having your vision augmented by a spell counts as an 'interaction', imho.

Are you "interacting" with a plane if you see it as it flies overhead? Studying carefully is one thing, but simply getting a save when you see it is another--particularly since the Church Inquisitor (and some other PrCs, I believe) specifically gets an ability to make a save against an illusion "just" by seeing it.


Sure, but that wasn't my point about the SR. I actually didn't even mention self-buffing.

No, but I mentioned buffing, and the only Evocation buffs I mentioned are self-only anyway, so shadow evocation buffs allowing SR doesn't matter.


In any event, you've not mentioned a single spell that retains its effectiveness as a Shadow spell, and my point was, explicitly, that shadow evocation, outside shadowcrafting, is inferior to actually being able to cast the Evocations in the first place.

1) The ones I've mentioned are plenty effective; I think the disagreement here comes from your differing interpretation of interaction with illusions.

2) The comparison here isn't between casting shadow evocation and casting an Evocation normally; rather, it's between banning Evocation (and then being able to somewhat compensate for unique Evocation spells with the shadow evocation line) or banning another school (and not being able to make up for unique Evocations even in a limited manner). If you have to ban something, Evocation is by far the best option because the Evocation spells that deal damage, summon walls, etc. can be done by other schools and the Evocation spells that can't be covered by other schools can be duplicated (imperfectly) by shadow evocation. That's all we're saying: not that shadow evocation is a substitute for a normal casting of the same spell, not that it's at all optimal to use it for Evocation in general, simply that the only unique tricks Evocation has can be duplicated well enough to make banning Evocation the obvious choice.

[HalfDragonCube]

When a thread dissolves into a few people quoting each other bit by bit, bad things happen.

Or debate.

[The-Mage-King]

When a thread dissolves into a few people quoting each other bit by bit, bad things happen.

Or debate.

Or?:smallwink:

[Godskook]

It says the save is "Will (object)." What is an unattended object's Will save? If they get one, it isn't very high.

Finally found the rule, and only magical or attended items get saves. That still doesn't retain most of shatter's usefulness at the levels you'd be casting a shadowed version.


No, you want to fail the save. Failing the save means it's 100% real to you, passing gets you the lower percentage.

Dang it, my bad.


And that relates to an arrow being physically in your possession...how?

Cause the rule isn't "in your possession", its "attended". Some versions of the rule in the SRD give a non-inclusive list of what that means(which is unhelpful) while others give an inclusive list. The inclusive list supports your side of the argument, but I didn't find it until just now. I also have no idea which list takes precedence.


Granted, shadow-duplicated wind walls do little against focused archer characters. They're still useful, however, in the scenario I cited before, when you're facing a primary-melee character who has to pull out a backup weapon for ranged combat; seeing as most melee beatstick monsters don't have magical ranged weapons, it works just fine for them.

Did you walk over my point on purpose? A primary melee can easily afford a magical ranged weapon at these levels, and with the prominence of DR/magic, even should. This at level 9, when it first becomes available. Very soon, having a non-magical backup becomes inexcusably stupid.


Are you "interacting" with a plane if you see it as it flies overhead? Studying carefully is one thing, but simply getting a save when you see it is another--particularly since the Church Inquisitor (and some other PrCs, I believe) specifically gets an ability to make a save against an illusion "just" by seeing it.

Does the plane overhead affect your stats in some way? If not, no you're not interacting with it. A continual flame allows for normal sight, thus actually affecting you


No, but I mentioned buffing, and the only Evocation buffs I mentioned are self-only anyway, so shadow evocation buffs allowing SR doesn't matter.

1.I admit, I missed the personal-only nature of the buffs.

2.Fire Shield still allows SR for creatures who would be damaged by it.


1) The ones I've mentioned are plenty effective; I think the disagreement here comes from your differing interpretation of interaction with illusions.

Shatter - Replicating a 2nd level spell with a 5th level slot, when attended or magical objects automatically pass the save makes this strictly and horribly inferior.
FireShield - Suddenly allows both a will save and SR to opponents. We're not talking effective here.
Wind Wall - The shadow version doesn't come into play until magic weaponry is far too common, and magical arrows automatically succeed their saving throw. So not very effective.
Contingency - I'm going with my original argument that DM adjudication is required to make a shadow version of this work.
Continual Flame - I'll yield this one, only cause I really don't want to spend time arguing about how much interaction counts as interaction.

So the score is:
Ineffective - 3
Debatable - 1
Effective - 1

(I just found the "objects automatically pass their saves" line in shadow evocation)
(I'm now left wondering what happens when a non-magical unattended object passes the save it wasn't allowed to take, but only cause it sounds funny)


2) The comparison here isn't between casting shadow evocation and casting an Evocation normally; rather, it's between banning Evocation (and then being able to somewhat compensate for unique Evocation spells with the shadow evocation line) or banning another school (and not being able to make up for unique Evocations even in a limited manner).

You've made no attempt previously to discuss anything except the former. Feel free to start addressing the others, but since you were focusing on that single point, I responded to your comments by defending it.


If you have to ban something, Evocation is by far the best option because the Evocation spells that deal damage, summon walls, etc. can be done by other schools and the Evocation spells that can't be covered by other schools can be duplicated (imperfectly) by shadow evocation. That's all we're saying: not that shadow evocation is a substitute for a normal casting of the same spell, not that it's at all optimal to use it for Evocation in general, simply that the only unique tricks Evocation has can be duplicated well enough to make banning Evocation the obvious choice.

And I disagree, for the reasons listed above, only one of which you've responded to.

[Yuki Akuma]

And I disagree, for the reasons listed above, only one of which you've responded to.

So...

It's better to ban another school, which you have absolutely no access to, than to ban Evocation and get partial access to it with Shadow spells?

Wow.

[subject42]

Note that you can always voluntarily fail a save, the whole "But it's your own illusion!" argument notwithstanding.

"How are you doing that?!"

"I have 20 ranks in solipsism."

[subject42]

It can be used as a safety catch for cliffs. Make one about halfway down. On it put a cushion and a small-print sign saying 'The flooring is not real; please watch your step'.

Interestingly enough, this is one of the few times in which the illiteracy class feature of the Barbarian would come in handy.

[Godskook]

So...

It's better to ban another school, which you have absolutely no access to, than to ban Evocation and get partial access to it with Shadow spells?

Wow.

Since...................

Y'know what, this almost a completely pointless argument to be in. We're arguing about something that's only going to matter for Diviners, and only if the DM goes by RAW(instead of the opinion espoused in one of the Giant's gaming articles). For all other circumstances, you'll either ban both, keep the one you're back-up specializing in, or specialize into it. So I'm done. I don't care who 'won', I don't care who's 'right'. This is just so immaterial. Argh.

[faceroll]

Outside of some really unique force effects, and the totally broken Contingency, Gust of Wind and Wind Wall are probably the best spells in Evocation. Gust of Wind shuts down about half the battlefield control spells in Conjuration, for instance.

Would a Solid Fog count as a magical object? It's a conjuration effect with a duration; I'd be inclined to say that it is indeed a magical object. Which means the only reason to keep evocation around can't be replicated by illusion, even if you're burning through 5th level slots to do it.

With that said, second level spells you can easily put on a wand and UMD it, either with a dip in loremaster or from someone else in the party.

Evocation is a great school to ban if you have a party with you. Playing from level 1, the most efficient wizard is a GOD wizard. Efficient damage builds require fairly heavy investment, which means opportunity costs (of course, a wizard without skills or feats would still be pretty damn powerful). They also tend to come online rather late in the game. If you want to play Schrodinger's Wizard, it's better to be a generalist.

[Keld Denar]

If you REALLY want Fire Shield, you can actually poach it out of Transmutation with the Heart of Fire spell. Its 100% real.

I think the best use of Shadow Conjouration is the Craft Magic Tattoo spell, if only to get around the pain of tracking the 25g/day tax to keep it always on. By the time you are hitting CL12 to get the CL bump, a 4th level spell, while not trivial, is expendable.

Also, I'm still not sold on Wall of Force. Its vertical only, which is a decent limitation for 3d combat, and it really needs anchors to be effective. If your foe can just walk around it, you've bought yourself 1 extra round of not being mauled. Congrats, you just spent a 5th level slot to do what Solid Fog does 99% of the time. Thus, you need to use it to block walkways and divide small rooms. Rooms with walls that are generally made of stone. In the time it takes to chop through a Wall of Stone, the foe could almost as easily chop through the WALLs to get around your Wall of Force. It being not-sculptable and vertical only are pretty big drawbacks, if you ask me. Its situationally useful, sure, but not as useful as some people make it out to be.

[peacenlove]

What feat is that?

Opposition research. Basically an ability a 9th level wizard can take instead of a normal feat.

[holywhippet]

If an illusionist has banned either evocation or conjuration as one of their banned schools, is he still able to replicate Evocation and Conjuration spells using Shadow Conjuration and Shadow Evocation?

Many Thanks :smallbiggrin:

Consider this - both shadow conjuration and shadow evocation are on the bard spell list. Given that most of the spells that you can mimic aren't available to bards (ignoring shenanigans) then it stands to reason that wizards wouldn't have any problem casting whatever they want.

[Coidzor]

With that said, second level spells you can easily put on a wand and UMD it, either with a dip in loremaster or from someone else in the party.

Or get it on an eternal wand and not even need UMD, IIRC.

[faceroll]

Or get it on an eternal wand and not even need UMD, IIRC.

Eternal Wands aren't spell completion?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Eternal Wands aren't spell completion?

Eternal wands have a clause saying they can automatically be used by any arcane caster regardless of the spell they hold.

[faceroll]

Eternal wands have a clause saying they can automatically be used by any arcane caster regardless of the spell they hold.

Wow, that's quite dandy.

[Zook Murning]

Well thanks for all the help guys :smallbiggrin:

I think I am going to ban Evocation and Enchantment.

The Idea is a Shadowcraft mage, I have scoured my dragon issues and other resources and come up with some DC boosting feats (To minimize the trouble from the second will save) and abilities as well as some that boost up the shadow %.

Thanks again for all the help :smallbiggrin: