banned schools for an illusionist? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Shadowknight12

2011-10-25, 03:31 PM

well i have orders from my DM to avoid most necromancy, as our dread necro is a dnd virgin. so making him feel less useful would be a nono. im thinking enchantment and evocation, cuz by the time i need evocation i have shadow evocation

If you're under orders to avoid necromancy, why don't you ban that? Illusion has its fair share of (subpar) save-or-dies as well. Then pick Evocation or Enchantment as you prefer.

Something that you shouldn't forget is that you don't want Evocation to blast. That's Conjuration's job. The only reason to get Evocation is Contingency, which you can (expensively) duplicate with a feat from Complete Arcane.

umbergod

2011-10-25, 03:34 PM

This can't qualify for Shadowcraft Mage.

don't care :) have no desire to go into it, as this isnt a "optimize 100% or die" campaign, its a low tier 3 campaign.

also necromancy/enchantment wouldnt be bad, though one of my favorite spells from BoVD is enchantment....hmmmm

Ravens_cry

2011-10-25, 03:34 PM

umbergod

2011-10-25, 03:36 PM

Piggy Knowles

2011-10-25, 03:40 PM

Hells, Conjuration can go if you go Shadow Conjuration.

Sorry, but Conjuration is the single most flexible school out there. Direct damage, area damage, battlefield control, teleportation (which Shadow Conj explicitly cannot duplicate), debuffs, utility, etc. Don't drop it, please. Shadow Conjuration is nice but won't cover it.

Evocation is a school with a few niche utility spells that are REALLY GOOD when you need them, but aren't needed all the time. That makes them perfect candidates for Shadow Evocation. But Conjuration just has too much going for it.

MesiDoomstalker

2011-10-25, 03:42 PM

well i have orders from my DM to avoid most necromancy, as our dread necro is a dnd virgin. so making him feel less useful would be a nono. im thinking enchantment and evocation, cuz by the time i need evocation i have shadow evocation

Ok, going out on a limb here and saying the DN is going to try his hand at minionmancy. Which is, like, 3-5 spells of Necromancy. The best things about Necromancy for a non-DN, non-Cleric are ray debuffs, save-or-die, and dishing out negative levels. Talk to the DN and figure out how s/he will play. If s/he going to try minionmancy, keeping Necromancy won't step on his toes if you avoid minionmancy. Likewise, show him how DN's other Necromancy spells are very useful. There can never be too much debuffing going on. Like, seriously. 2 different casters throwing around Necomancy debuff rays will shut down opponents and shut them down hard. No toes get stepped on because your working as a team.

faceroll

2011-10-25, 03:43 PM

umbergod

2011-10-25, 03:46 PM

Ok, going out on a limb here and saying the DN is going to try his hand at minionmancy. Which is, like, 3-5 spells of Necromancy. The best things about Necromancy for a non-DN, non-Cleric are ray debuffs, save-or-die, and dishing out negative levels. Talk to the DN and figure out how s/he will play. If s/he going to try minionmancy, keeping Necromancy won't step on his toes if you avoid minionmancy. Likewise, show him how DN's other Necromancy spells are very useful. There can never be too much debuffing going on. Like, seriously. 2 different casters throwing around Necomancy debuff rays will shut down opponents and shut them down hard. No toes get stepped on because your working as a team.

my original idea was a necromancy specialized wizard, focusing on draining and debuffing. the DM asked me nicely not to, so its possible the DN might be going for all around necromancy. his sole reason for joining this play by post game is because of the way the dread necro works I guess.

Piggy Knowles

2011-10-25, 03:50 PM

Teleportation is pretty neat, but you can just use Shadow Walk for traveling long distances.

You can replicate battle field control stuff with illusions, if your DM isn't a tool.

Conjuration is really nice, but you can get by without it. But for an illusionist? I don't see him blasting stuff. Conjuration's utility with stuff like dimension door or solid fog or summon monster VI is great.

Honestly, Illusion and Conjuration play really nice together, if you're so inclined. Being able to interchange the real and the fake makes it very dangerous for people to disbelieve any of your illusions. It's really nice when someone sees through your fake summoned monster, and decides that your Acid Fog is also an illusion...

Malachei

2011-10-25, 04:00 PM

The only reason to get Evocation is Contingency, which you can (expensively) duplicate with a feat from Complete Arcane.

I think Evocation has a few aspects to it that offer superb battlefield control which would be hard to duplicate via Shadow Evocation -- for instance, Wall of Force, Defenestrating Sphere, Howling Chain, Blacklight. Also, Craft Contingent Spell is a feat often banned.

In higher level play, I'd probably ban Enchantment rather than Evocation, in lower level play vice versa.

umbergod

2011-10-25, 04:03 PM

Shadowknight12

2011-10-25, 04:17 PM

I think Evocation has a few aspects to it that offer superb battlefield control which would be hard to duplicate via Shadow Evocation -- for instance, Wall of Force, Defenestrating Sphere, Howling Chain, Blacklight. Also, Craft Contingent Spell is a feat often banned.

In higher level play, I'd probably ban Enchantment rather than Evocation, in lower level play vice versa.

I don't have the time to list a spell that does something similar and belongs to another school, but trust me, they exist.

In a pinch, summon, call or turn into a creature who can achieve the same effect. That's why you never ban Conjuration or Transmutation.

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-10-25, 04:23 PM

I would keep enchantment. It has some nice debuffs (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mindFog.htm)to help make your illusions better. Up tyhat one enough and now all your illusion spells are that much better. Evocation can go. Hells, Conjuration can go if you go Shadow Conjuration.
I would keep Necromancy for debuffs (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bestowCurse.htm), leave the iconic death magic stuff to your D&D newbie.

NO. Just... no.

Enchantment can stay or go. Do note that Mind Fog has a Will save Negates tag on it... so if you are worried about hitting their Will save, then this isn't going to help you in the least bit. Bestow Curse is a TOUCH spell, meaning you have to get up close to it... and you get it a full spell level later than the Cleric does. Pass.

The only thing extremely useful out of Necromancy is Enervation. The rest can be safely skipped.

Conjuration, on the other hand, has all of your 'Taxi Cab' spells (DimDoor/Teleport/Greater Teleport/Plane Shift) which you will be wanting, and CANNOT be duplicated by any other means. For this reason ALONE, do not ban Conjuration.

If you don't want to step on the Dread Necromancer's toes, then ban Evocation and Necromancy. If nothing else, Contingency can be duplicated via Greater Shadow Evocation, even if it is two spell levels later.

NeoSeraphi

2011-10-25, 04:26 PM

Just in case you're not dead set on the elf generalist wizard, the gnome illusionist is very powerful. It may not have an Intelligence bonus, but it does have the best racial substitution level you've ever seen, which actually gives you illusion spells as lower level spells.

Suddenly, you have silent image and ventriloquism as cantrips. You get mirror image and minor image at first level. And so on. Up to 5th level spells. And this all happens at 1st level.

The downside to this, is, of course, as lower level spells they have lower saving throw DCs, but as a gnome, you get an improved DC anyway, so it breaks even! I highly encourage you to check it out. (It's in Races of Stone)

As for your request, I suggest banning the abjuration and evocation schools. A lot of people value the abjuration school simply for its ability to dispel, but your dread necro friend can do that without needing to prepare it, and he has more spells per day to burn on it than you do anyway. I've always found the abjuration school to be boring and bland and not really having any interesting spells (Note: Interesting and good are very different)

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2011-10-25, 04:27 PM

well its starting at 1st level. think i am going to opt for the sun elf generalist wizard, for the simple mass amounts of spells i get. My DM okayed Collegiate Training and the 1st level elf wizard substitution ability stacking, so each level up nets me 5 free spells.

Use Martial Wizard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#wizard), get Improved Initiative at Wizard 1 with a Hummingbird familiar (+4 initiative, Thrush stats) and use the Elf Wizard 3 sub level to double that familiar bonus. Get either Spontaneous Divination or Domain Granted Power (Inquisition) at Wizard 5. Another option would be to get Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot at Wizard 1 and 5, for ray spells and since you can use a bow as backup.

umbergod

2011-10-25, 06:10 PM

Use Martial Wizard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#wizard), get Improved Initiative at Wizard 1 with a Hummingbird familiar (+4 initiative, Thrush stats) and use the Elf Wizard 3 sub level to double that familiar bonus. Get either Spontaneous Divination or Domain Granted Power (Inquisition) at Wizard 5. Another option would be to get Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot at Wizard 1 and 5, for ray spells and since you can use a bow as backup.

how could i get either of those feats at 5th level? aren't the bonus feats from martial wizard only drawn from the fighter bonus feat list?

Boci

2011-10-25, 06:53 PM

how could i get either of those feats at 5th level? aren't the bonus feats from martial wizard only drawn from the fighter bonus feat list?

I believe domain wizard allows you to trade your bonus feats for other abilities. I've seen it argued that domain wizard never specifies thet the sarificed feats need to be the default wizard bonus feats.

umbergod

2011-10-25, 06:56 PM

I believe domain wizard allows you to trade your bonus feats for other abilities. I've seen it argued that domain wizard never specifies thet the sarificed feats need to be the default wizard bonus feats.

ah, so its an ambiguous interpretation of the ruling and combining of variants >.>

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2011-10-25, 06:56 PM

how could i get either of those feats at 5th level? aren't the bonus feats from martial wizard only drawn from the fighter bonus feat list?

Replaces: This benefit replaces the bonus feat gained by a wizard at 5th, 10th, 15th, or 20th level.

As long as you would be gaining a bonus feat, regardless of what feat list it's drawn from, you can choose to replace it with one of those ACFs.

umbergod

2011-10-25, 07:05 PM

As long as you would be gaining a bonus feat, regardless of what feat list it's drawn from, you can choose to replace it with one of those ACFs.

well I guess that would work, are those in the UA or another book?

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2011-10-25, 07:06 PM

well I guess that would work, are those in the UA or another book?

Look again: "Originally Posted by Complete Champion"

umbergod

2011-10-25, 07:10 PM

>.< well apparently i need new contacts. imma retard. oh well, I have that book so its all good, i'll see what my dm says about that

Grendus

2011-10-25, 11:47 PM

Ban Enchantment and Necromancy. Enchantment, as has been said, overlaps a lot with Illusion, and Necromancy overlaps with the newbie player. You could sub Evocation for one of those, but I'd keep it. Evocation is underrated (lots of good spells, they just overlap too much with Conjuration), but very fun and fairly versatile if you do enough splat diving.

ericgrau

2011-10-26, 12:39 AM

kulosle

2011-10-26, 02:44 AM

well everyone always should get rid of evocation. there is nothing it can do that someone else can't. except magic missle oh nooo! and enchantment just makes sense to give up as an illusionist because you mess with peoples heads with illusion, not directly through the spell itself. and if you should lay low on necromancy than take focused specialist and give up that too. totally worth it for an illusionist.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-26, 07:44 AM

ah, so its an ambiguous interpretation of the ruling and combining of variants >.>

Not ambiguous...RAW correct. And variant mashing may be allowed, consult your DM.

Malachei

2011-10-26, 10:55 AM

well everyone always should get rid of evocation. there is nothing it can do that someone else can't. except magic missle

Repeating this over and over does not make it true. Actually, most statements that go "every should always do this" are often exaggerated and sometimes simply false. There's a lot of good spells in the Evocation school, and magic missile is a really bad example of what the school can do. Especially out of core, Evocation becomes a good option. Not a strong choice to specialize in, but certainly not deserving the "worst-school-ever-tag" it gets attached like a cliché.

We should all give Evocation some more love! :)

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-10-26, 12:03 PM

That and shadow evocation can't mimic any of the good evocations without entirely defeating their purpose. Usually that's reliability, since it adds a save. A higher level sucks too. Try magic missile (strategic, not normal, targets), flaming sphere (low levels only), fireball, resilient sphere (reflex lowest average save, immunities uncommon => best SoL), wall of ice, wall of force, cone of cold (mass combat only), contingency, forcecage, delayed blast fireball (and tricks). Shadow evocation screws over every single one.

Of the spells listed, only three are really worth bothering with: Wall of Force, Contingency, and Forcecage.

With Contingency, your price for banning Evocation is getting it two spell levels later as Greater Shadow Evocation, although the upside is that it no longer requires an expensive focus.

Wall of Force is situational at best, and you have Conjuration to produce walls of nearly any flavor you want, so while it's ability to ignore physical damage is neat, it's ultimately not important enough to not ban the whole school

Forcecage is the third one. By using it with Greater Shadow Evocation, you allow SR and you allow a Will save (negates, effectively, UNLESS you do Shadowcraft cheese to end up getting at or above 100% 'real' anyways, in which case the will save is pointless). However, this is a fair trade off for not having to spend 1500 in expensive material components per casting. That adds up quickly after a while, yanno?

In other words... if you want blasting, there's better ways to do it than evocation. For those few precious gems, the Shadow Evocation/Greater Shadow Evocation isn't as bad as all that.

Malachei

2011-10-26, 02:28 PM

Of the spells listed, only three are really worth bothering with: Wall of Force, Contingency, and Forcecage.

There is much more to Evocation than that.

With Contingency, your price for banning Evocation is getting it two spell levels later as Greater Shadow Evocation, although the upside is that it no longer requires an expensive focus.

Again, this is a simplifying statement. There's been a lot of discussion on whether you can successfully Shadow Evocate Contingency (or whether you automatically make your Will save vs. your own Illusion (Shadow) spell), and there's no consensus on various boards. Your (and mine) personal opinion is fairly irrelevant, if his DM rules otherwise.

Wall of Force is situational at best

Wall of Force is one of the few spells that offer an outstanding defense for many, many situations. I've seen Wall of Force in dozens of situations where it saved PC lives.

People always say that Evocation has only a handful of outstanding spells -- but this is right on par with Necromancy (which doesn't have a lot of trademark spells either) and much more versatile than Enchantment.

My point is not that Evocation is a strong school to specialize in (it isn't), but it is better than its image, and especially outside core, compared to, for example Enchantment. Given a choice between Enchantment, Evocation and Necromancy, I'd drop Enchantment first, followed by Necromancy.

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-10-26, 02:35 PM

Again, this is a simplifying statement. There's been a lot of discussion on whether you can successfully Shadow Evocate Contingency (or whether you automatically make your Will save vs. your own Illusion (Shadow) spell), and there's no consensus on various boards. Your (and mine) personal opinion is fairly irrelevant, if his DM rules otherwise. Anyone can voluntarily fail a saving throw. That's in the PhB, there's really no 'personal opinion' about it.

Wall of Force is one of the few spells that offer an outstanding defense for many, many situations. I've seen Wall of Force in dozens of situations where it saved PC lives. Wall of Stone/Iron works just as well in nearly every situation. In the case of Wall of Iron, you even get to break the economy with it.

People always say that Evocation has only a handful of outstanding spells -- but this is right on par with Necromancy (which doesn't have a lot of trademark spells either) and much more versatile than Enchantment. Necromancy either has Fear (mind-affecting, just like Enchantment), a very precious few debuffs that are generally too high level for what they do (Ray of Exhaustion), and Enervation, which is exactly what the Dread Necro will be doing a lot of, no need to steal his thunder.

My point is not that Evocation is a strong school to specialize in (it isn't), but it is better than its image, and especially outside core, compared to, for example Enchantment. Given a choice between Enchantment, Evocation and Necromancy, I'd drop Enchantment first, followed by Necromancy.

And my point is that Enchantment actually has useful buffs in it (Heroism), wheras the other two... don't.

Malachei

2011-10-26, 02:54 PM

The problem with Enchantment is that almost all of it is mind-affecting, and allows for SR. While it has some use in low-level games, IMO, in higher level games, Enchantment is a weak tactic. And the overlap with Illusion is really huge, so in this particular case, I'd always drop Enchantment first.

The debate on Shadow Evoked Contingency was never an SRD discussion. I think all DMs agree that there are special cases not covered by general RAW. I said that our personal opinion doesn't matter if the player's DM rules "as long as you know, you can't pretend not to know" -- which is, arguably, essentially something different as the voluntary failing of a Save vs. a real effect, such as when you don't jump for cover (Reflex), etc. I know at least two DMs who would rule this way -- This discussion has taken hundreds of threads on various board, and we will not be able to solve it here (it is not my intent to do so, but to point out that this is something where there is disagreement and different DM's have different rulings).

EDIT:
Two examples:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#illusion
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw.

And from Rules of the Game: All about Illusions: (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060228a)

The caster, however, knows the illusions aren't real.

IMO, this implies you can't fail a save against your own illusion.

On Wall of Stone / Iron -- In high-level play, I've seen Walls of Force used to good effect, especially as they are invisible and not everybody has a Disintegrate effect handy.

But to not get into a personal discussion in too much detail here. I was pointing out there's more to Evocation (Howling Chain, Defenestrating Sphere, are just two examples) than its bad image. I think too many people discard Evocation too quickly, and advise others to do so too quickly, as well.

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-10-26, 03:19 PM

The problem with Enchantment is that almost all of it is mind-affecting, and allows for SR. While it has some use in low-level games, IMO, in higher level games, Enchantment is a weak tactic. And the overlap with Illusion is really huge, so in this particular case, I'd always drop Enchantment first.

The debate on Shadow Evoked Contingency was never an SRD discussion. I think all DMs agree that there are special cases not covered by general RAW. I said that our personal opinion doesn't matter if the player's DM rules "as long as you know, you can't pretend not to know" -- which is, arguably, essentially something different as the voluntary failing of a Save vs. a real effect, such as when you don't jump for cover (Reflex), etc. I know at least two DMs who would rule this way -- This discussion has taken hundreds of threads on various board, and we will not be able to solve it here (it is not my intent to do so, but to point out that this is something where there is disagreement and different DM's have different rulings).

EDIT:
Two examples:

And from Rules of the Game: All about Illusions: (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060228a)

IMO, this implies you can't fail a save against your own illusion.

On Wall of Stone / Iron -- In high-level play, I've seen Walls of Force used to good effect, especially as they are invisible and not everybody has a Disintegrate effect handy.

But to not get into a personal discussion in too much detail here. I was pointing out there's more to Evocation (Howling Chain, Defenestrating Sphere, are just two examples) than its bad image. I think too many people discard Evocation too quickly, and advise others to do so too quickly, as well.

Unfortunately for this argument, it doesn't matter if you know it is an illusion or not.

You see, it's a 'shadow' spell, which means it ISN'T a glamor, or a figment, it's actually backed up by 'real' shadowstuff. Which means it's going to affect you one way or another, it's just a matter of how much of it affects you. The will save in this case is not a 'disbelieve', it's a 'resist the effects', so previous argument does not apply.

Piggy Knowles

2011-10-26, 03:20 PM

Overall I agree with Malachei about Evocation being overly bashed - there ARE some very nice utility spells. (Other core spells that haven't been mentioned include Shatter, Gust of Wind, and Wind Wall). But it's niche at best.

Still, I think that Evocation has such a bad rep because of so many people playing wizards the "wrong" way*, and getting really excited about filling their spell lists with fourteen different variations on "Roll Xd6 damage, save for half." One of the first things a decent optimizer learns is why this is such a sub-optimal way to play, so there's understandably a lot of backlash toward the school.

Anyhow, I prefer Evocation to Enchantment, but I realize it's personal preference. I like the neat utility spells that Evocation offers, and I really dislike Save-or-Dies (they're either useless or really anti-climactic). The only things I ever really miss from Enchantment are the out-of-combat Charm Person uses, and Heroics. Either school could be dropped comfortably, though.

But as far as not allowing people to voluntarily fail saves? It's cool that you see DMs houserule that away, but that means they're playing a different game. There is really nothing up for interpretation in the PHB's section on Magic. Here's the relevant quote, pulled from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow):

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.

*Yes, I understand there's actually no wrong way to play a D&D character - I'm using hyperbole here.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2011-10-26, 06:22 PM

Wall of Force and Forcecage are quite good, but aren't exactly worth keeping an entire school for. If you add in Evocation's 9th level offerings, Invoke Magic in Lords of Madness and Iceberg in Frostburn, it's actually worth keeping if you know you'll be using spells of that level for quite a while. Many characters won't even get high enough level to gain Forcecage. If you go for the what-about-core-only argument, Evocation loses two of the best spells in the game. Outside of core-only, Evocation gets replaced almost completely by other schools. Losing Evocation sacrifices far fewer options than losing any other school, so apart from extremely situational circumstances which would require that the stars align in favor of this school*, "everyone always should get rid of evocation."

*
If you're fighting incorporeal/ethereal opponents at least once per day and need to use Wall of Force and/or Forcecage to trap/block them,
and
Your DM has made an arbitrary houserule against Shadow Contingency, which does work 100% by RAW,
and
Your DM has made an arbitrary houserule against the Shrink Item Dome protecting you from AMF, and he uses AMF/dead magic unfairly often, and you're high enough level that Invoke Magic can be used quite often,

Then in those circumstances you'd do well to keep Evocation, but you'd be better off going Cleric of Mystra, and that DM likely has control issues.

Malachei

2011-10-26, 09:36 PM

Unfortunately for this argument, it doesn't matter if you know it is an illusion or not.

You see, it's a 'shadow' spell, which means it ISN'T a glamor, or a figment, it's actually backed up by 'real' shadowstuff. Which means it's going to affect you one way or another, it's just a matter of how much of it affects you. The will save in this case is not a 'disbelieve', it's a 'resist the effects', so previous argument does not apply.

Not true.

In most cases, what applies to a figment spell also applies to a shadow spell, with one important exception: A shadow is partially real. A shadow can have real effects, even when a subject disbelieves the shadow. (emphasis mine)

The Rules of the Game article clarifies that

1. The Will save is a disbelieve.

2. As a caster, you always disbelieve your own illusion.

3. Shadows work as figments, except for the chance to still have some partial effect after the successful save.

4. Hence, the caster is affected by his own Illusion (Shadow) spells' partial effect only.

Thus, Shadow Evoked Continengy and similar effects work, but only with the Shadow Evocation's success chance, i.e. 20% likely to occur. Same applies for Shadow Conjuration.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2011-10-26, 09:47 PM

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.

Give a reference to where any rule says a caster automatically gets to disbelieve his own illusions. You must make a Will save in order to disbelieve, which the caster doesn't get to automatically make, just like if he drops a Fireball on himself he doesn't get to automatically make the Reflex save.

He would be interacting with a Shadow Conjuration, so he would get a saving throw to disbelieve it, but a character can voluntarily fail any saving throw and thus he would do so. He doesn't automatically disbelieve; he may know that he's cast an illusion, but it's strong enough to fool his senses unless he notices something about the spell that causes his perception of it to falter. In the case of Shadow Contingency, the only thing that would provide that is a Spellcraft check, and he can also voluntarily fail his Spellcraft check to identify his own spell as an illusion.

Malachei

2011-10-26, 10:06 PM

From my post in this thread, five posts above yours:

Two examples:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#illusion
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw.

And from Rules of the Game: All about Illusions: (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060228a)

The caster, however, knows the illusions aren't real.

IMO, this implies you can't fail a save against your own illusion.

I think these references clearly support what common sense should command anyway: A caster would know the effect he creates himself, and know it is only partially real, and hence would be affected based on the shadow spell's partial effectiveness.

I am always surprised at how much argument arises over this, when it appears to be pretty clear both by RAW, RAI and common sense. One explanation I can think of is that people fight this so hard, because they've been accustomed to see this as a nice loophole to gain the luxury of dropping a school with almost no loss. I can understand it feels like somebody is taking something away from your character options. But that is how the designers have created the game.

In that aspect, a funny idea from the PF boards:
by AvalonXQ (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/rules/canYouUseGreaterShadowEvocationToHaveA2ndContingen cy)

Self-Deceiver
As you have learned to generate magical effects, you have convinced yourself that your own illusions are real.
Prerequisites: Spell Focus (illusion), no more than five spell-casting levels when first taken
Effect: Whenever you cast an illusion with a Will save to disbelieve, you believe the spell to have a real, substantial effect as though you failed the Will save to disbelieve it. You automatically fail any saves to disbelieve your own illusions.
Normal: A caster automatically disbelieves his own illusions.

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-10-26, 10:09 PM

Not true.

(emphasis mine)

The Rules of the Game article clarifies that

1. The Will save is a disbelieve.

2. As a caster, you always disbelieve your own illusion.

3. Shadows work as figments, except for the chance to still have some partial effect after the successful save.

4. Hence, the caster is affected by his own Illusion (Shadow) spells' partial effect only.

Thus, Shadow Evoked Continengy and similar effects work, but only with the Shadow Evocation's success chance, i.e. 20% likely to occur. Same applies for Shadow Conjuration.

Unfortunately, you linked the wrong part. Where you should be going is:

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.

And 'needs no saving throw' does not equate 'cannot voluntarily fail his saving throw' it just means he auto-succeeds on it if he chooses to

Besides, if you're that worried about it, simply use various tricks to increase the 'real' to at or above 100% so it doesn't matter if you make the save or not. End of problem.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2011-10-26, 10:31 PM

I think this is what everyone has been looking for:
The rules don't say so, but if you create an illusion that allows a saving throw for disbelief, you automatically disbelieve it (you know it isn't real because you created it). (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060221a)

However, looking at Contingency itself, it does not directly affect the caster. It instead causes another spell that was expended during its casting, a very real spell in most cases, to be triggered upon the caster. So if you disbelieve the Shadow Contingency and it has no affect on you directly, does it still trigger the very real spell which has a 100% chance of affecting you?

Malachei

2011-10-26, 10:38 PM

The part you quoted is not contradictory to my quote, at all.

A shadow can have real effects.

Yes, I agree to this (emphasis mine). Real effects, that are, if the illusion (shadow) is disbelieved, are 20% as strong or
or only 20% likely to occur

And 'needs no saving throw' does not equate 'cannot voluntarily fail his saving throw' it just means he auto-succeeds on it if he chooses to

That is your personal interpretation. As shown above, the caster knows that his illusion is not real, and shadow spells are not an exception to this, as pointed out in the references above, as well.

But really, isn't this common sense, as well?

EDIT: @Biffoniacus_Furiou: I think the quote you gave clarifies it.
Regarding the conclusions: The effect is, in fact, something that interacts with the caster -- in case of Contingency, it is even personal range. Would I automatically disbelieve my Shadow Evoked Wall of X, but not my Shadow Evoked Contingency or my Shadow Conjured Mount?

Shadow Evocation and Conjuration always create spell effects, which are always known to the caster as not real.

Hence, you automatically disbelieve, which means that your Contingency is 20% likely to work.

Psyren

2011-10-26, 10:48 PM

This can't qualify for Shadowcraft Mage.

Adaptations exist.

Teleportation is pretty neat, but you can just use Shadow Walk for traveling long distances.

Shadow Walk, in addition to taking much longer and being very imprecise, invites DM screw. The spell doesn't protect you from running into natives.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2011-10-26, 10:53 PM

Hence, you automatically disbelieve, which means that your Contingency is 20% likely to work.

60% likely to work. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shadowEvocationGreater.htm)

If you have any two of Shadowcrafter 7, Shadowcraft Mage 5, and the Enhanced Shadow Reality feat, it goes up to 100%.

"You can place another spell upon your person so that it comes into effect under some condition you dictate when casting contingency." Thus, immediately upon casting Contingency it has an effect or it does not. Knowing whether or not there was an effect on you would take as much effort as a Detect Magic. If it didn't work, you cast it again. With a 60% likelihood you probably won't need to cast it more than twice, but you can probably be ready to cast it three times if needed. It lasts a day per level, so you shouldn't be down any spells during your adventure until it's triggered.

Malachei

2011-10-26, 11:21 PM

Yes, the Killer Gnome is the obvious solution to the issue.

And yes, it would be 60% of course, in case of Contingency, which would require Greater Shadow Evocation. Thanks for pointing that out.

My personal interpretation of the %-chance is different, though, but of course this part of the Shadow spells' description needs a lot interpretation anyway, depending on the spell duplicated. The %-chance is used in terms of "x% effective" or "x% likely to work". When applied to damage-dealing effects, this is pretty simple, but other spell effects need a judgment. Personally, I'd let the player roll when the Contingency takes effect in terms of "is triggered".