The Great Shadow Debate

[Solo]

For years, it has been debated whether a spellcaster can willingly forgo a saving throw for his own Shadow spell.

We all know that some saves do not need to be made.

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.

The chief issue is this bit of rules text:

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.

Gentlemen, I am proud to announce that I have resolved the issue once and for all. This shall definitively settle the issue of whether or not a spellcaster can believe in a spell he knows to be false!

[SorO_Lost]

Taking a placebo to feel better isn't the same as taking a placebo to spout wings and fly away through, gravity doesn't exactly care what you think. Try Glibness instead.

[ketaro]

I feel like you're being sarcastic, Solo.

[Chemus]

Is- is that sarcam, ketaro?

Solo just wants the catgirls to die.

Proof:

A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result...

A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw...

The first is neither negated nor modified by the second. The second says that a save is unnecessary, not that a save is removed or replaced; the spell still asks for one, but the character doesn't need to roll one. He still may, as it's not prevented.

Lastly, rule of cool says that the shadow conjurer should be able to use his own shadow illusions for fun stuff. Like crossing a shadow conjured bridge and watching half those who follow fall to their [likely] deaths, or riding a shadow conjured phantom steed.

[SorO_Lost]

Lastly, rule of cool says that the shadow conjurer should be able to use his own shadow illusions for fun stuff.

Whoa hold up there.

Shadow Illusions are partially real and that's an entirely different argument. "Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others."^RC121. The Shadow Subschool on the other hand builds off that adding, "Such illusions can have real effects."¹²². Then higher up on the rules structure is of course how Shadow Conjuration has a 20% chance the effect happens even if you know it's an Illusion, like walking across a Shadow-based bridge can work even if you succeeded on the Save, while Phantom Steed summons a quasi-real horse that allows one person to ride it and the Spell doesn't even have a Save in the first place. Point being, these things are apples and oranges.

The discussion is about Illusions in general, and not the one tiny secluded exception that doesn't affect any other subschool's rules or even replace the text when discussing Illusions in general, and it just isn't the same. It's just an illusion, or false belief, to think they are.

Also you should know that quote there is incorrect.

VOLUNTARILY FAILING
A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a consequence.

Key change in the updated rule set is you get "a consequence" and not "the spell's effect." The intended change to ambiguity is probably that by requiring a DM-based ruling it can negate silly "RAW" comments like quoting out-dated-rules for forced spell effects. Like claiming failing your Save against Phantom Trap on a plain old rock means you got hit with a Polymorph Spell Trap and can turn into a Dragon to fly around and breath fire or something just as equally ridiculous.

[SorO_Lost]

Here is some further reading, little outdated since it uses the PHB's rules (thankfully not the reference document) but it's worth digging into.

• All About Illusions (Part One)
• All About Illusions (Part Two)
• All About Illusions (Part Three)
• All About Illusions (Part Four)

And they are part of the Rules of the Game, so say you have the opinion that not needing a Saving Throw can be used as an affirmation of the adjunct, but someone else may have the opinion that the caster who choose to use an illusion and created the effect so they know for a fact it's not real no matter what Save can, or cannot, offer. Instead of just relying on who debates better or who makes the worst illogical assumptions, sometimes official documentation can help you decide on what house rules, if any, you'll walk away with.

So like Chemus's illusionary floor?
A non Shadow-based version is discussed and guess how it works.

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. For example, if a party encounters a section of illusory floor, the character in the lead would receive a saving throw if she stopped and studied the floor or if she probed the floor.

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline. For example, a character making a successful saving throw against a figment of an illusory section of floor knows the "floor" isn't safe to walk on and can see what lies below (light permitting), but he or she can still note where the figment lies.

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. A character who falls through a section of illusory floor into a pit knows something is amiss, as does one who spends a few rounds poking at the same illusion. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.

[Chemus]

Solo mentioned Shadow spells in the OP, SorO. In the PHB, most of the shadow spells are the shadow conjuration/evocation/shades line, and the other three (project image, simulacrum, and shadow walk) are not something that can have an effect while being believed that they can't while being disbelieved. Shadow conjuration/evocation, et al, is what the debate is about. The 20%+ reality of the shadow-stuff creature/object is what the debate is about, too. Can the caster choose to forgo his will save to disbelieve?

Regarding RC's wording alteration, consequence =/= 'always bad stuff'. It still allows you to choose to forgo a save.

Regarding the RotG articles, and the PHB quotes, they show how to define and adjudicate interaction, as well as define irrefutable proof. They say nothing about whether irrefutable proof removes the save, or makes it an automatic success. If the former, then the caster can't treat his shadow conjurations/evocations as completely real in regards to himself. If the latter, however, then the caster may choose to forgo his save, even though it would be automatic. He could shadow conjure a mount and ride it away, or walk on that bridge, without either having a chance to fail him.

As I was re-reading through the articles, I remembered a fun idea I'd had. The rules in the PHB, and the examples there (only) suggest that unless a creature takes special actions to inspect or muck about with the illusory floor, they don't make a save to disbelieve; they instead just assume all is as it seems and walk on the illusion. If it's a shadow illusion, then it affects them normally.

If this interpretation is used , then it would be hilarious to make a dungeon in a chasm or some-such using shadow walls of stone. Anyone inspecting it would need to fail a saving throw or fall X% of the time. And then, so would the rest of the party, as they'd have just seen something really strange as the rogue fell through the floor he was checking for traps.

[TheJerkStore]

I take the side of allowing my players to voluntarily disbelieving their own shadow spells.  I kind of see it as a kind of zen state of mind:  "Reality is mine to shape and control, I am one with the shadow and it is one with me". 

[SorO_Lost]

Regarding the RotG articles, and the PHB quotes, they show how to define and adjudicate interaction, as well as define irrefutable proof. They say nothing about whether irrefutable proof removes the save, or makes it an automatic success.

They don't?

Automatic Disbelief
According to the Player's Handbook, if you're faced with proof that an illusion isn't real, you disbelieve the illusion without making a saving throw. The rules give a few examples of "proof" that an illusion isn't real. If you step on an illusory floor and fall through, you know that floor isn't real. Likewise, if you poke around an illusory floor and your hand (or the implement you're using as a probe) goes through the floor, you know the floor isn't real.

It's worth noting that in both examples the illusion fails to function as a real object would. A real floor is solid. It supports your weight (unless it breaks under you), and you can't push objects or parts of your body through it. A character could create an illusion that reacts appropriately when disturbed (with a programmed image spell, for example). In such cases, a character interacting with the illusion still must make a saving throw to disbelieve the illusion. For example, if you use a programmed image spell to create an illusory floor that collapses when someone touches it or walks in it, that's consistent with the way at least some real floors work and a saving throw is required to disbelieve even when someone falls through it.

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).

Huh, guess someone will be making a post about how important their opinion is over WotC's Rules of the Game archive published under Game Rules because of ad hominem attack, ad hominem attack, poisoning the well, appeal to some kind of emotion (probably the hatred of nerfs), and which ever one that says if one thing can be proven incorrect through an updated rule then all of it should be assumed to be incorrect before the final really stupid after-polish "RAW" comment that really just streamlines the entire paragraph and the validity poster's opinion into one sentence.

Then in another thread everyone will just continue remark Wizards are OP, Sorcerers suck balls, and encourage inventing houserule corrections like they didn't just argue that a Wizard should be able to prepare one Spell as a buff-replacement to entire Schools of magic. Nevermind, pretty sure that's called reductio ad absurdum. Actually, this entire post might be but all well.

[Chemus]

Regarding the RotG articles, and the PHB quotes, they show how to define and adjudicate interaction, as well as define irrefutable proof. They say nothing about whether irrefutable proof removes the save, or makes it an automatic success.

They don't?

Automatic Disbelief
...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).

Emphasis mine.

Yet somehow, I'd overlooked that line. That's interesting.

[mrttao]

I take the side of allowing my players to voluntarily disbelieving their own shadow spells.  I kind of see it as a kind of zen state of mind:  "Reality is mine to shape and control, I am one with the shadow and it is one with me".

you meant voluntarily believing?

[SorO_Lost]

As long as you know the rules, the players need be concerned only with their characters and how they react to what happens to them in the game. Have players tell you what they want their characters to do, and translate that into game terms for them. Teach them how the rules work when they need to learn them, on a case-by-case basis. For example, if the player of a wizard wants to cast a spell or the player of a fighter wants to attack, the player tells you what the character is attempting. Then you tell the player which modifier or modifiers to add to the roll of a d20, and what happens as a result. After a few times, the player will know what to do without asking.

Emphasis mine.

Oh no Chemus, emphasis is all mine. After all, no proof is meaningless. But in terms of D&D you need to remember that if the people at the tabletop cannot translate their attempts into the rules, such as "the rules don't say", well they just need to try something else. And eventually, with enough trial-and-error and coaching, they should be able to find the rules they want instead of relying on stuff like ambiguity, language debates, and houserules that do nothing but cover subjects the rules have already discussed. 

Really this thread as an example of voluntarily failing a Will Save against personal illusions. And ironically, this only works because people haven't faced what they would consider definitive proof to shut up about it yet.