What is the purpose of the shades spell (or any similar shadow conjuration)?

[Mattsayshola]

I'm sure this has been asked before, but I searched and I couldn't find a similar post. Why would you take a level 9 spell slot to cast something level 8 or below with only 80% realness/efficiency? I've always tried to make sense of this but never could. Does it have some sort of benefit?

Thanks!

[deuxhero]

You can cast ANY spell that fits from just the one prepared.

3.5 or PF? If you're PF it has fantastic downtime utility by not being limited to wiz/sorc spells.

[hamishspence]

And it's also possible to boost them so they do significantly more damage than their real counterparts.

[Necroticplague]

The fact that what specific spell it emulates is undefined until casting. For a spontaneous caster, they can use one spell known slot to cover a lot of different spells. For a prepared caster, they can use it to cover multiple options (do I prepare wall of force or forcecage? Screw it, shadow evocation, and I can choose based on the situation later).plus, unlike a lot of spell-emulating spells, the shadow line doesn't require you to pony up the components of the emulated spell, so it might be useful for things that are otherwise costly, especially if you can use them only on yourself (since you can choose to willingly fail the will save and be effected in full force), like contingency.

[Vhaidara]

I'm sure this has been asked before, but I searched and I couldn't find a similar post. Why would you take a level 9 spell slot to cast something level 8 or below with only 80% realness/efficiency? I've always tried to make sense of this but never could. Does it have some sort of benefit?

Thanks!

Because, by memorizing/learning a single spell (Shades) you have access to an entire school of magic. This single spell is a significant contributor to the weakness of Evocation: Between Shadow Evocation and Greater Shadow Evocation, you can emulate ANY evocation spell of 7th level or lower. ANY OF THEM. Think about that for a Sorcerer, a class where the biggest weakness is needing your spells to be as versatile as possible. You can now, for the price of 2 spells, simulate like 85% of an entire school of magic.

[Piggy Knowles]

Barring super-reality tricks (as those usually go alongside Shadowcraft Mage, which means you won't be casting Shades - you'll be casting a heightened Earth Spell Silent Image), it's really just a question of versatility. There is such a wide variety of spells that it's hard to envision a scenario where some spell would turn a difficult encounter or situation into a cakewalk. The challenge, then, becomes having the proper spell. That's where spells like Shadow Conjuration come into play.

Honestly, I find that wizards don't actually get as much use out of them as sorcerers, though. Wizards can do things like leave spell slots unfilled or use Spontaneous Divination or Uncanny Forethought to access different spells, so giving up power for versatility isn't quite as essential. Sorcerers, on the other hand, have a much smaller toolbox, so they need spells that will be usable in almost any situation. It's pretty tough to find a day when Shadow Conjuration and its family won't be handy.

[Bad Wolf]

You can make things more real then reality. It also frees up spaces for other spells, so you only need one spell for all of Conjuration/Evocation.

[Chronos]

It used to be (back in 2nd edition or earlier) that illusionists were forced to give up evocation and conjuration, so the shadow spells were a way for them to fake it. Now that people can choose their own barred schools, that's no longer so relevant... but nowadays, we have sorcerers, who can only learn a few spells, and need to be able to make those few work for every situation. So they're still useful, just for a different sort of caster.

[amalcon]

What everyone else said is true, but there are additional benefits of having spells be in a particular school. For example, you can play an illusionist and use the Shadow Conjuration alikes to prepare effective non-illusions in your illusion slots. If you have Spell Focus: Illusion (e.g. for Master Specialist), or are a gnome, you can effectively apply those bonuses to Evocations and Conjurations. Things like this can really add up.

[Mattsayshola]

And it's also possible to boost them so they do significantly more damage than their real counterparts.

How do you mean?

[Vhaidara]

How do you mean?

IIRC, Shadowcrafter + Shadowcraft Mage can push the "realness" percentage (that 80% you mentioned) up to 110% or 120%. Meaning that enemies who make the Will Save technically take more damage than those that fail.

[ILM]

In specific cases, the fact that components and casting time are locked may also prove beneficial.

[Necroticplague]

IIRC, Shadowcrafter + Shadowcraft Mage can push the "realness" percentage (that 80% you mentioned) up to 110% or 120%. Meaning that enemies who make the Will Save technically take more damage than those that fail.

+planar bubble for the plane of shadow to add 20% realness+ a feat that adds 10%.

[ILM]

+planar bubble for the plane of shadow to add 20% realness+ a feat that adds 10%.
Technically the plane of Shadow only adds 10% and it very specifically applies only to (greater) shadow evocation/conjuration and Shades. No official word on how it affects Shadow Illusion; by RAW the wording to me seems to indicate that it's not covered, though it would make pretty obvious sense.

PS. The feat is from a Dragon Mag, isn't it? Doesn't that make it third party? (been away for a while, I forget if Dragon's generally legal or not)

[Psyren]

Dragon's legality depends wholly on your DM. It tends to be devalued around here for that reason.

[Dalebert]

3.5 or PF? If you're PF it has fantastic downtime utility by not being limited to wiz/sorc spells.

Are you confident of that? It's not clear to me from the description that's the case.


This spell functions like shadow conjuration, except that it mimics conjuration spells of 8th level or lower.

Since it functions like shadow conjuration and that spell says it's only sor/wiz spells, wouldn't Shades also be limited to sor/wiz spells of 8th or lower? I very much hope I'm wrong and you're right but I have to make the case to my DM!

[Psyren]

Are you confident of that? It's not clear to me from the description that's the case.



Since it functions like shadow conjuration and that spell says it's only sor/wiz spells, wouldn't Shades also be limited to sor/wiz spells of 8th or lower? I very much hope I'm wrong and you're right but I have to make the case to my DM!

You can read it either way. "Except it mimics conjuration spells of 8th level or lower" could be read as merely an addition to the lower level spell's scope, or it could be read as replacing it entirely with a scope that does not preclude non-sor/wiz spells.

By all means make the case to your DM, worst case scenario is that he/she says no and you're back where you started.

[Theomniadept]

One thing that's always bugged me is how does it work? So, a shadow summoned monster only does 20% damage and has only 20% of its HP? What about something like a shadow Forcecage - is there just a 20% chance to fail to walk out of it?

[Rubik]

Genesis is a Conjuration (Creation) spell that has a terribly long casting time and a prohibitive XP cost.

Sanctum Spell (Shades) has all of the benefits and none of the drawbacks.

[Psyren]

One thing that's always bugged me is how does it work? So, a shadow summoned monster only does 20% damage and has only 20% of its HP? What about something like a shadow Forcecage - is there just a 20% chance to fail to walk out of it?

Shadow Evocations that don't do damage - like Forcecage - are binary. Either you believe they're real, in which case they affect/contain you, or you don't, and they don't.

[Extra Anchovies]

Genesis is Conjuration (Creation) spell that has a terribly long casting time and a prohibitive XP cost.

Sanctum Spell (Shades) has all of the benefits and none of the drawbacks.


This spell functions like shadow conjuration, except that it mimics sorcerer and wizard conjuration spells of 8th level or lower. The illusory conjurations created deal four-fifths (80%) damage to nonbelievers, and nondamaging effects are 80% likely to work against nonbelievers.
Tacking Sanctum on there doesn't let you copy ninth-level spells. It lets you copy 8th-level spells that act as if they were ninth level, and thus have +1 to the DC and count as one level higher for dispelling/immunity/whatever purposes. Also, two of the three iterations of Genesis, all of which are 3.0, are exclusive to the Creation domain anyways.

[Rubik]

Tacking Sanctum on there doesn't let you copy ninth-level spells. It lets you copy 8th-level spells that act as if they were ninth level, and thus have +1 to the DC and count as one level higher for dispelling/immunity/whatever purposes. Also, two of the three iterations of Genesis, all of which are 3.0, are exclusive to the Creation domain anyways.But the effects of a metamagicked Shades spell are affected by the metamagic, just like an Empowered Limited Wish's effects (mimicking, say, Fireball) would also be Empowered.

So if using Sanctum Shades to emulate a 3rd level spell leads to the emulated spell being (effectively) 2nd level (which is then effectively heightened to 8th level), the emulated Genesis spell would count as 8th level, thus being Shade-able.

[Extra Anchovies]

But the effects of a metamagicked Shades spell are affected by the metamagic, just like an Empowered Limited Wish's effects (mimicking, say, Fireball) would also be Empowered.

So if using Sanctum Shades to emulate a 3rd level spell leads to the emulated spell being (effectively) 2nd level (which is then effectively heightened to 8th level), the emulated Genesis spell would count as 8th level, thus being Shade-able.

Ah, I get it now. You're using Sanctum to reduce the effective level of Genesis, not to increase the effective level of Shades.

Geez, what were they thinking when they wrote that feat?

[Rubik]

Ah, I get it now. You're using Sanctum to reduce the effective level of Genesis, not to increase the effective level of Shades.

Geez, what were they thinking when they wrote that feat?Other than +1 to the save DC, I have yet to find a suitable exploit for boosting the effective spell level, whereas there are all sorts of exploits for the reduction in spell level.

Want to know how to create a scroll of a -1 level spell? Easy Metamagicked Sanctum Spell'd Grease.

[Extra Anchovies]

Other than +1 to the save DC, I have yet to find a suitable exploit for boosting the effective spell level, whereas there are all sorts of exploits for the reduction in spell level.

Want to know how to create a scroll of a -1 level spell? Easy Metamagicked Sanctum Spell'd Grease.

Not quite. From Easy MM's description:
"You can never reduce the spell-slot cost below one level higher than the spell's actual level."

However, you could just do Sanctum Detect Magic or whatever.

[Snowbluff]

Because, by memorizing/learning a single spell (Shades) you have access to an entire school of magic. This single spell is a significant contributor to the weakness of Evocation: Between Shadow Evocation and Greater Shadow Evocation, you can emulate ANY evocation spell of 7th level or lower. ANY OF THEM. Think about that for a Sorcerer, a class where the biggest weakness is needing your spells to be as versatile as possible. You can now, for the price of 2 spells, simulate like 85% of an entire school of magic.

Evocation sucks.

By using less effective versions of evocations, we make it better. :smalltongue:

[Dalebert]

Shadow Evocations that don't do damage - like Forcecage - are binary. Either you believe they're real, in which case they affect/contain you, or you don't, and they don't.

Yes, but there's still a 20% chance that it will work against nonbelievers.


Shadow objects or substances have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they are 20% likely to work.

Here's a thought. If you summon a spiked pit, what about the falling part? Presumably they'll take 20% if they successfully disbelieve, but are they still trapped down there? Strictly RAW, I suppose disbelievers take 20% falling and spike damage regardless and then have a 20% chance of actually falling, otherwise 80% chance of hovering above the semi-real pit but that's... weird. *shrug*

[Extra Anchovies]

Yes, but there's still a 20% chance that it will work against nonbelievers.
Might be nice to have the whole text of the spell (it's OGL, right?); bolding mine, for emphasis.

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, such as lightning bolt, 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, such as gust of wind, 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.

[Psyren]

Yes, but there's still a 20% chance that it will work against nonbelievers.

As Anchovies pointed out to you, You're mixing up Shadow Evocation and Shadow Conjuration.

Shadow Evocation, if it is used with a nonblasting effect, is basically will negates.

[Rubik]

Not quite. From Easy MM's description:
"You can never reduce the spell-slot cost below one level higher than the spell's actual level."

However, you could just do Sanctum Detect Magic or whatever.Huh. The source I had for that didn't have that caveat, but I guess it was an abridged description.

[Necroticplague]

Other than +1 to the save DC, I have yet to find a suitable exploit for boosting the effective spell level, whereas there are all sorts of exploits for the reduction in spell level.

Want to know how to create a scroll of a -1 level spell? Easy Metamagicked Sanctum Spell'd Grease.

Well, the increased spell level without an increased spell slot is excellent for early entry cheese, but that's about it. And Eldritch Corruption does the same job a bit better.

[Chronos]

Increased spell level can also get you past a Globe of Invulnerability, or the like. And an appropriately-heightened Light spell can negate any Darkness spell. Honestly, I suspect that those cases were actually the reason that they developed Heighten Spell, with the boost to save DC being at best an afterthought.

[Dalebert]

As Anchovies pointed out to you, You're mixing up Shadow Evocation and Shadow Conjuration.

Shadow Evocation, if it is used with a nonblasting effect, is basically will negates.

You're right, with regard to Force Cage, I had assumed they worked the same. My other example--Spiked Pit is a 3rd lvl conjuration spell which can be mimicked by Shadow Conjuration and that effect is weird but I can kinda imagine it.

Here's a fun one. You're being chased, probably because you set it up like taunting some ogres or something. Make a shadow Wall of Ice as a bridge across a pit or a canyon. Purposefully fail your will save so your party can cross it but make sure you're carrying some object with you. Stop on the edge of the bridge and wait. Just as they're crossing, drop the object. Now in case any of them who are now interacting with the bridge failed their saves, they have a clue to get a new save (with +4 I think?). If they make it, they fall.

I'm not sure about this one, but anyone "breaking through" a Wall of Ice passes through a sheet of frigid air which would do 20% damage to non-believers. That's admittedly iffy though. The wall hasn't strictly and literally been broken, but the wall is partially real and there is frigid air in it that should be 20% damaging even to non-believers.

Continual Flame is a very weird one. If you go strictly RAW (and I wouldn't as a DM) then this is a clearly superior way to get light than a regular Continual Flame. Mainly, you avoid the costly material component. Secondly, you now have a selective light source. When enemies show up, you can point at it and shout "This light isn't real". Now, if they make their save, they're plunged into darkness. You specifically chose to fail your save so you can still see. That part is probably pretty circumstance-dependent... but still cool. Most things wandering around without their own light source probably don't need one to see. With a little though though, you could set up some amusing traps. Get the party confused as to whether failing or succeeding on a will save is beneficial or harmful in a particular context. I think I'm going to use something like this in my Halloween one-shot adventure!

[Psyren]

Here's a fun one. You're being chased, probably because you set it up like taunting some ogres or something. Make a shadow Wall of Ice as a bridge across a pit or a canyon. Purposefully fail your will save so your party can cross it but make sure you're carrying some object with you. Stop on the edge of the bridge and wait. Just as they're crossing, drop the object. Now in case any of them who are now interacting with the bridge failed their saves, they have a clue to get a new save (with +4 I think?). If they make it, they fall.

The mechanics on this are not quite accurate. First off, the saving throw is per actor - i.e. you make a save when you interact with it. So you voluntarily failing your save makes the bridge "real" only with respect to yourself - everyone in your party must do the same once they interact with it in order to not fall through. If they do not know to do this, depending on how you communicate this fact to them (such as yelling back "believe the bridge is real!") then your pursuers might hear you and also know what to do. You can metagame this to everyone at the table, but the DM can easily say "well, you didn't specify you weren't yelling that in character, so the ogres heard you." He might have them roll an Intelligence check or something to see if any of them figure out the proper strategy, or more likely he will just have them roll their poor will saves and "succeed" by failing. (Basically, they'd be too dumb to know it's not real, and paradoxically be in less danger than if they were smart - Wile E. Coyote style.)

For your second part - dropping an object through the bridge does mean that they won't need to make a saving throw, but they still can (and therefore voluntarily fail it) to avoid falling through. Simply proving the bridge is an illusion will not guarantee that your pursuers plummet to their deaths. Now granted, if you somehow clued in the party without alerting them and they had no one on their team with spellcraft to know what you were doing, they might at that point disbelieve with disastrous results, but there is plenty of wiggle room here for the DM to say "they believe in the bridge too and make it across."



I'm not sure about this one, but anyone "breaking through" a Wall of Ice passes through a sheet of frigid air which would do 20% damage to non-believers. That's admittedly iffy though. The wall hasn't strictly and literally been broken, but the wall is partially real and there is frigid air in it that should be 20% damaging even to non-believers.

If they disbelieve the intact wall, then it is not "broken" and they take no damage. But if someone who believes the wall breaks through it, the frigid air will be in that square, and even nonbelievers will be subject to that (at 20% strength.)

[Chronos]

If you're planning on using illusions a lot, then you should probably pre-arrange some code words with your party, while you're back safe in the inn, to tell them when they should believe or disbelieve particular illusions. Like, as you're running across the ice bridge, you shout "Be careful-- This thing is as slippery as a banana peel", and because you said "banana", your friends know that they're supposed to voluntarily fail their saves.

[Psyren]

If you're planning on using illusions a lot, then you should probably pre-arrange some code words with your party, while you're back safe in the inn, to tell them when they should believe or disbelieve particular illusions. Like, as you're running across the ice bridge, you shout "Be careful-- This thing is as slippery as a banana peel", and because you said "banana", your friends know that they're supposed to voluntarily fail their saves.

I like this idea :smallbiggrin:

My party had elaborate birdcall signals in one campaign, which involved a lot of forest and jungle treks.

[Dalebert]

First off, the saving throw is per actor - i.e. you make a save when you interact with it... everyone in your party must do the same once they interact with it in order to not fall through.

I didn't go into that level of detail because I thought it was obvious. Yes, the party would have to be in on it beforehand, obviously. It's the kind of plan that would often call for some preparation anyway. Message spells are nice for this sort of thing. I use this a lot. If you've already zapped your whole party with Message, you can send out a group whisper. My DM now takes it as a given that I maintain Message on the party at all times since cantrips can be recast in PF. Also, my character can't cast Wall of Ice and I would make a point of telling my party this along with an explanation of Shadow Conjuration, e.g. "If you ever see me conjure a Wall of Ice to cross a gap, it's not real, but it will carry your weight as long as you don't disbelieve it! And if you WANT to pass through one of my walls, DO disbelieve it."


If they disbelieve the intact wall, then it is not "broken" and they take no damage. But if someone who believes the wall breaks through it, the frigid air will be in that square, and even nonbelievers will be subject to that (at 20% strength.)

That's why I said it's iffy. Strictly RAW, I think your interpretation is accurate. However, I think my optional interpretation makes more sense. You can't actually go through a Wall of Ice without breaking it because it's solid... normally. This is a weird case. The implication is a Wall of Ice is very cold inside, so I would probably house rule that you take 20% damage from disbelieving and just passing through it. It's fake enough that disbelievers can pass through it, but it's real enough to do 20% damage even to non-believers. That's my reasoning.

[aleucard]

To summarize, without Shadowcraft Shenanigans, those spells are some of the largest Swiss Army Knives in the 3.5 library, allowing you to pull from the majority of 2 of the most direct schools and one of the best. If for nothing else, spontaneous casters can use it to multiply the effectiveness of their spells known list, since that single spell equals the rest of their spells known list in number several times over, and versatility is the key to success in this game. Prepared casters can get some use, but they already have workarounds for their spells prepared limits, and learning a given spell isn't all that hard. It will be appreciated in situations where gp, scroll selection, or both is limited, though, similar for if something unexpected occurs. Schrodinger's Wizard only really happens in Tippy's games, after all.

[Zubrowka74]

It used to be (back in 2nd edition or earlier) that illusionists were forced to give up evocation and conjuration, so the shadow spells were a way for them to fake it. Now that people can choose their own barred schools, that's no longer so relevant... but nowadays, we have sorcerers, who can only learn a few spells, and need to be able to make those few work for every situation. So they're still useful, just for a different sort of caster.

IIRC, in AD&D Illusionist was the only "specialist wizard" and it was a class on it's own. They felt they had to give it some equivalent from other schools so we ended up with spells like these. A bit useless in PF.

[Psyren]

I didn't go into that level of detail because I thought it was obvious. Yes, the party would have to be in on it beforehand, obviously. It's the kind of plan that would often call for some preparation anyway. Message spells are nice for this sort of thing. I use this a lot. If you've already zapped your whole party with Message, you can send out a group whisper. My DM now takes it as a given that I maintain Message on the party at all times since cantrips can be recast in PF. Also, my character can't cast Wall of Ice and I would make a point of telling my party this along with an explanation of Shadow Conjuration, e.g. "If you ever see me conjure a Wall of Ice to cross a gap, it's not real, but it will carry your weight as long as you don't disbelieve it! And if you WANT to pass through one of my walls, DO disbelieve it."

Message can be overheard though (not easy, but possible) so it's something to be aware of.


That's why I said it's iffy. Strictly RAW, I think your interpretation is accurate. However, I think my optional interpretation makes more sense. You can't actually go through a Wall of Ice without breaking it because it's solid... normally. This is a weird case. The implication is a Wall of Ice is very cold inside, so I would probably house rule that you take 20% damage from disbelieving and just passing through it. It's fake enough that disbelievers can pass through it, but it's real enough to do 20% damage even to non-believers. That's my reasoning.

I agree with you - it makes sense that it should be cold on the inside whether you break it or not.

[Psyren]

IIRC, in AD&D Illusionist was the only "specialist wizard" and it was a class on it's own. They felt they had to give it some equivalent from other schools so we ended up with spells like these. A bit useless in PF.

I wouldn't call them "useless." For starters, "summoning" via Shadow Conjuration is much faster than doing it normally. In addition, against weak-willed targets these spells are just as good as the real things, and a lot more versatile.

[Extra Anchovies]

Schrodinger's Wizard only really happens in Tippy's games, after all.

Schrodinger's Wizard? What's that?

[sleepyphoenixx]

I wouldn't call them "useless." For starters, "summoning" via Shadow Conjuration is much faster than doing it normally. In addition, against weak-willed targets these spells are just as good as the real things, and a lot more versatile.

Shadow "summons" also ignore things like Protection from X/Magic Circle against X and Dimensional Lock/Forbiddance.

[Psyren]

Schrodinger's Wizard? What's that?

A wizard who perfectly prepares exactly the right spells in exactly the right quantities to render the rest of their party obsolete in every encounter. Named after Schrodinger's Cat, because it's impossible to tell what spells the wizard has actually prepared until a situation arises.

[Rubik]

Schrodinger's Wizard? What's that?A wizard who can shuffle his build around to have any combination of feats and spells.

It's generally seen in arguments about what wizards are and are not capable of, and most talk about it derisively, saying that wizards can't do everything at once.

Granted, it can be done with some optimization, but they don't like to hear that.

[Psyren]

To be more accurate - It is possible by RAW to make a true Schrodinger's Wizard. It is much harder, however, to get one approved for a non-Tippy actual game.

[Malroth]

To play Schrodinger's Wizard Bribe DM with cheetos.

[Dalebert]

The party went up against the BBEG (of this adventure), a sorcerer who's one 4th level spell was Shadow Conjuration. The druid's wolf killed a "Summoned" giant ant in one bite. That was a let down. But the spiked pit wreaked a lot more havoc than I even expected. The DC was pretty high so a couple of them managed to both fail to disbelieve and fail to make a reflex save.

In retrospect, I think I made it too easy. The ones who disbelieved successfully after being told it was an illusion by another party member escaped the pit immediately. I don't think that was right. I think once they've already fallen in, they need to get out somehow, taking 20% of spike damage as they climb out. I guess I'm a softy.

[Chronos]

There's three senses in which you can have a "Schrödinger's Wizard":
1: You can literally not write down what spells you have prepared until you need them, and then say that those were the spells you had written down all along. This is cheating, and is usually what is assumed when people use the term "Schrödinger's Wizard" derisively.

2: You can use various high-op tricks to enable you to change your spells prepared on the fly, or to be able to cast all of them spontaneously, or whatever. This is allowed by RAW, but will be prohibited by most DMs anyway (Tippy being the best-known exception).

3: You can use various divinations and other measures to find out what you're likely to be fighting in advance, and prepare accordingly, plus a handful of versatile spells, thus usually (though not always) having just the spell you need. To some extent or another, this is the default assumption for a wizard, with some variance for just how accurate your preparations can get. This is where shadow spells come in, as they can provide the "...plus a handful of versatile spells" part.

[Dalebert]

I was looking for a pre-made Arcane Trickster in Hero Labs. The closest I found was a str8 sorcerer labeled Trickster Mage. He knew only one 4th level spell and it was Phantasmal Killer. Huh? How does someone called a Trickster Mage who only has one known 4th level spell not pick Shadow Conjuration? Pfft. I just slapped a level of rogue on him and switched out a couple of his spells to not be stupid.

[Rubik]

The closest I found was a str8 sorcerer labeled Trickster Mage.His Str score is irrelevant. His Cha, Con, and Dex scores are much less so.

[Zubrowka74]

I wouldn't call them "useless." For starters, "summoning" via Shadow Conjuration is much faster than doing it normally. In addition, against weak-willed targets these spells are just as good as the real things, and a lot more versatile.

Ah yes, I was refering to Shadow evocations, mainly, as conjurations only came with 3e I think? Of course it's never completely useless but still very niche.

[Vhaidara]

His Str score is irrelevant. His Cha, Con, and Dex scores are much less so.

I think he was shorthanding the word "straight". As in "...he was a straight [single-classed] sorcerer..."

[Dalebert]

His Str score is irrelevant. His Cha, Con, and Dex scores are much less so.


I think he was shorthanding the word "straight". As in "...he was a straight [single-classed] sorcerer..."

Haha. Yes! That's exactly what I was doing. It's just a habit, along with a lot of other odd spelling habits (like "stuph"). Thank you for that. His statement left me completely baffled. I had no idea what he was talking about. Now it makes sense and it's all my fault.

[Rubik]

I think he was shorthanding the word "straight". As in "...he was a straight [single-classed] sorcerer..."Why would he do that? This isn't a chat room, and it's not like he can't type four more letters on a keyboard than what he actually did.

Can he?

[edit] Oh. Never mind.

[Dalebert]

Can he?

I'm an AmeriCAN; not an AmeriCAN'T!