Shadow Evocation Daylight -> Overcome Shadow Blend?

[ksbsnowowl]

Shadow Blend (Su)

In any condition of illumination other than full daylight, a shadow mastiff can disappear into the shadows, giving it total concealment. Artificial illumination, even a light or continual flame spell, does not negate this ability. A daylight spell, however, will.


Would a Daylight effect created by a Shadow Evocation spell negate the shadow blend ability of shadow mastiffs and shadow creatures (LoM)?

Shadow Evocation:Shadow Evocation
Illusion (Shadow)
Level: Brd 5, Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: See text
Effect: See text
Duration: See text
Saving Throw: Will disbelief (if interacted with)
Spell Resistance: Yes

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.)

Spells that deal damage have normal effects unless an affected creature succeeds on a Will save. Each disbelieving creature takes only one-fifth damage from the attack. 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. If recognized as a shadow evocation, a damaging spell deals only one-fifth (20%) damage. Regardless of the result of the save to disbelieve, an affected creature is also allowed any save (or spell resistance) that the spell being simulated allows, but the save DC is set according to shadow evocation’s level (5th) rather than the spell’s normal level.

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 think the key lies in the below two statements, but they seem a bit contradictory in this situation:

"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."

"Nondamaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect."



So, if the shadow mastiff makes his Will save and disbelieves the Shadow Daylight... what happens? Is there a 20% chance that his shadow blend ability is still negated? Or does it have no effect, and doesn't negate his shadow blend ability?

[Erik Vale]

It's non-damaging, therefore it has no effect against those that disbelieve [in this case the Shadow Mastif], so the Mastif can become invisible.
Subject of course, to DM fiat.

[ksbsnowowl]

FYI, I am the DM. Just trying to do it "right."

[avr]

I agree with Erik. Note that a Shadow Mastiff isn't that likely to make the relevant Will save though, and they have specific info in their description about how they're likely to react to daylight spells.

[Fable Wright]

FYI, I am the DM. Just trying to do it "right."

I am fairly sure that the 20% is for rider effects on damage effects or single-target effects that do not deal damage. For Daylight, I would rule that simple disbelief causes failure. For effects like Bigby's Tripping Hand, the 20% rule would apply.

[MilesTiden]

On another note, Shadow Evocation: Daylight is hilariously paradoxical, in the most fun of ways.

[Phelix-Mu]

I've noted on other threads about (shadow) spells (specifically simulacrum), that, sometimes, something that is only "quasi-real" is actually just real (or so close that there is no meaningful difference). I'm not sure that this is one of those cases, but fake daylight that is real until you wish it away is pretty much just as useful as real daylight.

And, in fact, this is a pretty useful way to deal with different vision types in-party (if not particularly useful at low levels). The party members with darkvision try to disbelieve it, the ones that don't have darkvision fail their Will save on purpose. Bonus in that it will initially foil the darkvision of enemies (and force them to take time to disbelieve, and actually think to disbelieve a light source).

[ksbsnowowl]

I've noted on other threads about (shadow) spells (specifically simulacrum), that, sometimes, something that is only "quasi-real" is actually just real (or so close that there is no meaningful difference).

There is one big difference with shadow evoked daylight, though it isn't relevant to my question. Shadow evoked daylight does not have the [light] descriptor, and thus cannot automatically dispel [darkness] spells, nor can [darkness] spells automatically dispel it (assuming higher level, etc.)

But I get your point.

[Phelix-Mu]

There is one big difference with shadow evoked daylight, though it isn't relevant to my question. Shadow evoked daylight does not have the [light] descriptor, and thus cannot automatically dispel [darkness] spells, nor can [darkness] spells automatically dispel it (assuming higher level, etc.)

But I get your point.

Hmm, yes, that is an interesting distinction. And brings up yet more seemingly paradoxical issues, not to mention a funny way to achieve some weirdness with light effects (already a not entirely believable aspect of the game, since they interact with the largely non-believable Spot modifiers based on distance). It would be nice to stack darkness and light effects, selectively determining which ones to believe/disbelieve. Since things that normally can't be coexistent can be layered in this way, it may also be a way to trigger a number of effects at one time, as the enemy/target enters the AoE.

Hehe, shadow illusions sure are a funky bit of rules acrobatics to try to pin down.

[Chronos]

Would the relevant disbelief be by the shadow mastiff, or by the creature trying to see the shadow mastiff? If an area appears to me to be illuminated, that should mean I could see things in the area as if it were illuminated.

[Phelix-Mu]

Would the relevant disbelief be by the shadow mastiff, or by the creature trying to see the shadow mastiff? If an area appears to me to be illuminated, that should mean I could see things in the area as if it were illuminated.

Which pretty much gets to the heart of what I was saying. It seems to me the answer is that illusory illumination is still illumination. Just like illusory fog acts like normal fog until disbelieved and obstructs vision. I suppose this may also be true of normal illusions.

An interesting distinction. Illusory light works like light. But illusory warmth doesn't work like real warmth, I suppose. I guess illusory taste is as good as the real thing (due to little mechanical impact either way), and I could use illusory sound to communicate to allies that willingly fail Will saves (and enemies that are somehow immune).

[Feytalist]

Would the relevant disbelief be by the shadow mastiff, or by the creature trying to see the shadow mastiff? If an area appears to me to be illuminated, that should mean I could see things in the area as if it were illuminated.

Hmm, let's walk this through. If the shadow mastiff believes the illusion, it wouldn't hide, thinking it couldn't. Then, regardless of whether you disbelieve, you'd be able to see it fully.

If the shadow mastiff disbelieves the illusion, it would be able to hide. So, even if you see daylight, the mastiff would have concealment (this is the weird bit. Because even if you see daylight, it does not mean there actually is daylight. Otherwise you'd have the equivalent of a true seeing spell under very specific circumstances).

This is all just train of thought. Does it make sense?