Prove me wrong (please please please)

[ILM]

On Shadowcraft Mages: you get to emulate spells, woohoo. There are numerous ways to pump up the DCs of your illusion spells. However, by RAW, this does not seem to apply to the actually emulated spell (aside from the heightened spell level). E.g. Fireball offers a Reflex save and none of the Illusion DC-boosting feats/items/abilities would apply to that one. Shadow fireballs can be next to impossible to disbelieve, but will always be cake to avoid.

Tell me this isn't true.

[Iskajir]

Of course you're wrong. No matter how much it looks, smells, and singes like a fireball, it is in reality a heightened silent image.

[ILM]

Of course you're wrong. No matter how much it looks, smells, and singes like a fireball, it is in reality a heightened silent image.

Yes but:

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

Emphasis mine.

[Iskajir]

So your shadow evocation (fireball-looking) allows a reflex save. It's still Shadow Evocation pretending to be a fireball, which is an illusion. It uses the components and casting time of shadow evocation (not fireball). Detect magic knows it's an illlusion, not an evocation. Improved counterspell wants a fifth level illusion, not a third level evocation.

[skydragonknight]

Shadow Evocation/Conjuration are Illusions. While they may allow additional saves if disbelieved, there is nothing in the text that specifies they are treated as evocation or conjuration spells. So the school must therefore be the one it was cast as: Illlusion. And for feats and effects related to school of magic, only those which affect illusions would affect a shadow X spell or a silent image pretending to be a shadow x spell.

[ILM]

But then why do they bother specifying the DC is keyed off the level of the Shadow Evocation spell and not the Fireball spell? If the DC is the same as to disbelieve, the entire sentence becomes completely useless.

[PhaedrusXY]

But then why do they bother specifying the DC is keyed off the level of the Shadow Evocation spell and not the Fireball spell? If the DC is the same as to disbelieve, the entire sentence becomes completely useless.

Because they get both saving throws, not just one. It is telling you that they get two saving throws. How else would they word it?

[Halinn]

But then why do they bother specifying the DC is keyed off the level of the Shadow Evocation spell and not the Fireball spell? If the DC is the same as to disbelieve, the entire sentence becomes completely useless.

It is also a way of clarifying that it is the Shadow Evocation spell that's being cast, not an actual fireball.

[PhaedrusXY]

Of course you're wrong. No matter how much it looks, smells, and singes like a fireball, it is in reality a heightened silent image.

Yes but:

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

Emphasis mine.

Read the rest of that quote... That means the DC is really for Shadow Evocation (because that's what you're really casting). That is talking about the "original" save DC, also, not the extra Will save.

[ILM]

But then why do they bother specifying the DC is keyed off the level of the Shadow Evocation spell and not the Fireball spell? If the DC is the same as to disbelieve, the entire sentence becomes completely useless.

Because they get both saving throws, not just one. It is telling you that they get two saving throws. How else would they word it?

I dunno, for one the fact the fireball's reflex save still applies seems a bit obvious to me, but I can see the good in stating clearly that both saves apply. But why specifically say you use the level of Shadow Evocation instead of Fireball? They could just have said "the DC is the same as the one to disbelieve the illusion" or something. It's just that the fact they only mention the spell level modifying the DC calculation tends to indicate to me that they don't mean for the rest - i.e. illusion DC boosters - to apply. I know, RAI vs RAW, but doubt still lingers.

[Vicerious]

But then why do they bother specifying the DC is keyed off the level of the Shadow Evocation spell and not the Fireball spell? If the DC is the same as to disbelieve, the entire sentence becomes completely useless.

Because they get both saving throws, not just one. It is telling you that they get two saving throws. How else would they word it?

I dunno, for one the fact the fireball's reflex save still applies seems a bit obvious to me, but I can see the good in stating clearly that both saves apply. But why specifically say you use the level of Shadow Evocation instead of Fireball? They could just have said "the DC is the same as the one to disbelieve the illusion" or something. It's just that the fact they only mention the spell level modifying the DC calculation tends to indicate to me that they don't mean for the rest - i.e. illusion DC boosters - to apply. I know, RAI vs RAW, but doubt still lingers.

Spell descriptions are by their nature self-contained. It doesn't say it's the save to disbelieve because the shadow evocation save is the save to disbelieve. It then sets any additional save to the same DC as the shadow evocation.
Shadow DC = 10 + ability mod + spell level + illusion mods
Second save DC = shadow DC
QED

[ILM]

But then why do they bother specifying the DC is keyed off the level of the Shadow Evocation spell and not the Fireball spell? If the DC is the same as to disbelieve, the entire sentence becomes completely useless.

Because they get both saving throws, not just one. It is telling you that they get two saving throws. How else would they word it?

I dunno, for one the fact the fireball's reflex save still applies seems a bit obvious to me, but I can see the good in stating clearly that both saves apply. But why specifically say you use the level of Shadow Evocation instead of Fireball? They could just have said "the DC is the same as the one to disbelieve the illusion" or something. It's just that the fact they only mention the spell level modifying the DC calculation tends to indicate to me that they don't mean for the rest - i.e. illusion DC boosters - to apply. I know, RAI vs RAW, but doubt still lingers.

Spell descriptions are by their nature self-contained. It doesn't say it's the save to disbelieve because the shadow evocation save is the save to disbelieve. It then sets any additional save to the same DC as the shadow evocation.
Shadow DC = 10 + ability mod + spell level + illusion mods
Second save DC = shadow DC
QED

Well no, that's my point. The way I read it, the wording goes:
Shadow DC = 10 + ability mod + spell level + illusion mods
Second save DC = spell being emulated (fireball) DC using Shadow's spell level = 10 + ability mod + Shadow Evocation spell level + other mods appropriate for a fireball since we're modifying the DC of the spell being emulated. I could see how you'd then add on mods applying to illusions because in spite of everything, it's an illusion spell you're casting - but then do you get to boost the spell with both spell focus: evocation AND spell focus: illusion? Whoa, don't think so.

Look, I'm not trying to troll here, honestly I want to be convinced - otherwise my ScM build I've been tinkering with literally for years just exploded. In this thread the consensus is clear, and so it seems to be on other threads I've perused (in particular, all 58 pages of Snow's original thread and all 117 pages of the Handbook on WotC's site - or Gleemax, whatever it's called these days). However, I see some ambiguity in the actual wording of RAW and at least one person at GiantITP who usually knows his stuff agrees with me. Do you guys at least see where I'm coming from or do I just come off as the local crazy?

[Chilastra022]

ILM, you'll have to understand that even on the min/max boards, some things are mistaken as meaning something entirely different than what was intended, or even as written (RAI vs RAW argument id rather not get into), so chances are, you'll have to refer to your DM for an answer, or if you're the DM yourself, use what you feel is most logical.

On that note however i do agree with you in that:

"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 bolded does say that the spell being emulated is adjusted to a 5th level spell, rather than its original spell level, nowhere in the spell's description does it say that you use shadow evocation's save in place of the spell's save being emulated. Not sure where that notion came from, the entry isnt even being vague OR ambiguous, it literally says the spell level of the spell being emulated is adjusted to the spell level of Shadow Evocation (5th). They even put the spell level in brackets just for emphasis.

People can argue that since the spell is an illusion in the first place, then it should also use the save DC of the illusion the emulated spell is derived from. And on that, i can understand that line of thought. However the spells description refers to 2 things specifically:

1) The emulated spell's save DC.
2) The emulated spell's spell-level.

And because it specifically mentions these two important factors of the spell, it means A) The spell's save DC is independent and unrelated to the Save of the illusion, and B) That the level of the emulated spell is different than that of the illusion (but is adjusted to be the same). These two factors alone separate the two spell effects in question from one another, the only thing linking the two together is the fact that you're using one spell to produce the effects of another, and thus have an additional save involved because of it.

Had they been one and the same, they would not specifically mention the save DC of the spell being emulated, they would have more than likely said "The save DC of the emulated spell is the same as Shadow Evocation's save DC" or some such. Or just not say anything at all regarding the emulated spell's save/save DC (in which case id still be inclined to interpret it in this same fashion).

[Bard]

It's quite easy really in my opinion, the spell you cast IS an illusion with the effects of something else, it isn't a fireball or a summon monster III or anything of the sort, so any modifier to evocation spells has no place in any part of it. Including the DC. Hell, most of the Shadowcraft Mages don't even have those spells (Clerics) or have them banned (specialist wizards).
The save DC takes all and only the modifiers for Illusion and eventually other descriptors that might get added based on the emulated spell. If you have +1 to CL for evocation spells and you emulate a cone of cold, your CL for the dice of damage is still the one for illusion spells.

The sentence that seems to causing all the trouble, from my point of view, it's a simple reminder that the spell cast is actually the illusion spell, not a fireball or whatever, like for example when you cast Anyspell and you use it to cast a lvl 2 spell in a lvl 3 slot... the DC is still of the spell cast, not the one of anyspell (not sure if the example fits but I hope it was somewhat clear what I meant)

[Nytemare3701]

A shadowcraft spell is an illusion spell that allows a save to disbelieve, as well as any saves the spell it is emulating allows. At no point does it cease to be an illusion spell. It does not qualify for SF:Evocation. It does not get any bonus contingent on being an evocation spell. It is an illusion with shadowstuff making it more real. That is all.

[Chilastra022]

Then by that same line of thought, ill counter-argue that upon a target believing in an illusion, it ceases to be an illusion and is instead a real effect (in their mind anyway, but thats whats important right? Since the target's mind makes it real). In fact, the whole concept of illusion and quasi-reality supports the idea that you can make illusions so real that they utterly destroy your opponents as if they were the actual real thing. That suggests that there is a point where illusions cease to be merely illusions, and start to become something more substantial. After all, you end up with illusions that can not only char, singe, maim, and or otherwise scar enemies permanently, both physically and otherwise, but also kill them outright. At that point they aren't just mere illusions are they?

Anyway, i wont drag out the argument and rest my case, ill just agree to disagree with the mainstream's view of the subject

[Lycanthromancer]

It's still illusion, though. Otherwise you can't use Shadow Evocation to replace Evocation, or use SCM and Heightened Silent Images either, because you've dumped Evocation.

[PhaedrusXY]

Then by that same line of thought, ill counter-argue that upon a target believing in an illusion, it ceases to be an illusion and is instead a real effect (in their mind anyway, but thats whats important right? Since the target's mind makes it real). In fact, the whole concept of illusion and quasi-reality supports the idea that you can make illusions so real that they utterly destroy your opponents as if they were the actual real thing. That suggests that there is a point where illusions cease to be merely illusions, and start to become something more substantial. After all, you end up with illusions that can not only char, singe, maim, and or otherwise scar enemies permanently, both physically and otherwise, but also kill them outright. At that point they aren't just mere illusions are they?

Anyway, i wont drag out the argument and rest my case, ill just agree to disagree with the mainstream's view of the subject

Of course it is still an Illusion. Illusion is a school of magic. It's a mechanical term, not a fluff one. If a creature had an ability that made it immune to Silent Illusion (via Spell Immunity, etc), it would be immune to everything the SCM threw at it via Silent Illusion (for example). What the SCM is emulating doesn't matter at all.

[Nytemare3701]

Then by that same line of thought, ill counter-argue that upon a target believing in an illusion, it ceases to be an illusion and is instead a real effect (in their mind anyway, but thats whats important right? Since the target's mind makes it real). In fact, the whole concept of illusion and quasi-reality supports the idea that you can make illusions so real that they utterly destroy your opponents as if they were the actual real thing. That suggests that there is a point where illusions cease to be merely illusions, and start to become something more substantial. After all, you end up with illusions that can not only char, singe, maim, and or otherwise scar enemies permanently, both physically and otherwise, but also kill them outright. At that point they aren't just mere illusions are they?

Anyway, i wont drag out the argument and rest my case, ill just agree to disagree with the mainstream's view of the subject

You just mixed up reality and game mechanics >.<

It's an illusion spell that is capable of damage. It doesn't change mechanical schools just because the effect changes.

[Chilastra022]

You just mixed up reality and game mechanics >.<

I know, shame on me (hangs head in shame). (sigh)