If it's not increasing the level, sounds like you won't get the +1 DC

@Adeptus That's not how I interpret the rules. If that was the case, would it also mean that if I cast any non-Illusion (Shadow) or non-darkness spell in dim light, it would effectively gain +2 to DC (+1 from Tenebrous Spell, +1 for the increased spell level)?

@Adeptus Given its name (meaning "dark; shadowy; obscure"), I doubt this would work against shadow spells.

@Adeptus Tenebrous spell also increases DC in the second passage.

I figured this warrants a proper question...

Magic is hard

Well, you have spell level, caster level and spell slot level

Yeah, spell level and caster level can influence the parameters of a spell. Slot is just purely the cost for casting it. Tenebrous Spell doesn't change any other spell parameters than the spell's DC. It also lowers the cost of casting it, but only for the right type of spells.

Better said, it does not increase the cost for specific types of spells, but does so as per normal metamagic rules for any other spell type.

Tenebrous spell increases DC and caster level by 1. It increases spell slot cost by a level if it's not shadow or darkness spell. spell level is untouched

All clear :)

So, luckily, this feat is still on the wishlist then!

yep

otherwise it would be a terrible feat altogether

Well, there are lots of those :P

I still want to play your character concept.

Hey I Can Chan made a good point when comparing it to Heighten Spell.

yeah

@eimyr What's keeping you? You don't need permission from me!

Heighten Spell is pretty much the only way to increase spell level

I will never play pathfinder.

I have Mage's Tattoo that does that :)

It increases all my illusion spells

So Shadow Conjuration bumps up Dragon's Breath to level 5

and Mage's Tattoo bumps it up to spell level 6 (for a slot 5)

@eimyr While Pathfinder-specific mechanics enable me to play my concept, I'm confident you could play out this concept in pretty much any system?

sure, though...

you see I would play DnD ONLY for the joy of optimising a character

I'm currently in a dnd5e game and even though the game itself is fine, I grit my teeth at the DnD bit.

Pre-play satisfaction? :P

When I do DnD I NEED that addictive charop/char-building experience.

5e does not deliver as strongly and the game awards pitifully little xp

But why never play Pathfinder then?

no GM

I won't run it, ever, and I don't know anyone willing.

OSR, sure, DnD 5e anytime, but not Pathfinder.

I've had that exactly problem for a long time.

Finally found an awesome group. But patience was key...

OH I do have an awesome group

And - not proud of this - desperate begging friends-of-friends if they knew someone to play with.

there's 12 people and 8 of them are GMs

@eimyr That's an abundance of luxury in my eyes. jealous

unfortunately, there's much focus on the narrativist systems and not many opportunities to play an optimisation-heavy, mechanistic simulation/gamey adventure

Hah.

@eimyr I'd also kill for a Fate game, but I still think such a story-heavy system would lend itself to play this concept pretty well

See, the plentiful games also bring certain aches: It's hard to run a game, because there's much competition.

When you have more GMs than players and everyone has the best idea for a game ever, pitches become competitive fast

even more jealous

You should live where I am. Where you seem to live in an RPG candyland, I'm in the freakin' Sahara.

fortunately, some dudes expressed high interest in my games, as apparently (as a newcomer) I brought some games to the table they missed/never heard of/never thought to run.

Ha.

UK has a big LARP scene and RPG clubs/shops in most larger towns, not to mention large cities.

I'm not sure about Maastricht - it sounds like a big enough place?

It is, lots of students, but not much animo for tabletop RPG.

There's a big Magic The Gathering scene.

that's about it

I see.

HAve you reached out to local university societies?

I always felt language is a turn-off for RPG. I think that's also why in my current group we do in-character in English, but none of us are natively English...

That's what I did before I moved to where I live now - I just talked to some students and they sad "it's cool" to join them on campus for a game

erm...

I don't get it?

I've been playing RPGs in Polish (in Poland) most of my life.

It actually was very hard to reach a point where I can GM in english well.

@eimyr Well, we speak Dutch out-of-character. But in order to keep the immersion, we don't translate item names, feats, town names or gods etc. And to make it sound less dumb in-character interactions (like talking to a merchant) is done in English rather than Dutch.

I never did it. We translated everything to Polish save for character names

It improved the immersion actually.

I think it helps that 90% of Dutch people can speak English fluently. It's mandatory in school and we subtitle everything instead of synchronizing it in Dutch. We get a big English influence in our language.

there was no mode-swtiching between ooc and inc.

Yeah, that's true. In Poland most young people (in cities) are capable of holding a conversation in english, but playing a game might be challenging.

Related, I've read an article once that claimed if you speak or think in different languages, you actually have a different personality / attitude.

Somehow thinking or speaking in different languages also slightly changes you.

True.

I do it when programming. I write all my code with English comments and function names and such. It just works better for me.

No wonder, I do the same.

BUT I'm also a bit calmer and more... erm... patronising when I speak in english

In Maastricht we have a very strong Dutch dialect. It sounds nothing like Dutch at all. So technically I speak and think in three languages and often I feel that I have three different personalities. Not like I'm having some kind of disorder, but ever so slightly it changes the way I think and act about things.

@eimyr I have the same! :P For my job I do a lot in English, and I notice I'm much more "more business less small talk" when I'm in English mode...

I feel I'm much less "friendly" at work when I'm in English mode.

How about we move that to RPG general chat?

But in this sense, it helps me get 'back' into the RPG immersion after having switched to out-of-character for a moment. Going back to English sucks me back into the action, so to speak.

Well, as long as it works for you.

@eimyr Sure. Though it's lunch time for me now. I'll join there afterwards.

I just read about probably the cheapest tactic to create low light conditions around Lumen.

Someone wrote that you can cast "Arcane Mark" on your clothes. If you have Umbral Spell metamagic, that would do the trick, basically.

Erm...

That was my commentary to Umbral Spell.

derp :P

reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/2ioly7/…

@eimyr As per rules-as-written, yes. But I'm hoping to convince my GM to allow for an alternative approach to that.

Basically, if I understand you correct, you mean to say that if an illusory wall is only 20% real to an opponent (because they succeeded on their will save), only 20% of the time it would be solid, or it would only be 20% solid. But what is 20% solid? The rules aren't clear about this.

Rather, you could rule that the wall is real, but only 20% as high, or wide

No, not at all.

Because the illusion is not entirely fake. Some of it is actually real.

this is not what I'm saying.

Please clarify, I'm misunderstanding

If you produce a burning flame illusion and the victim disbelieves, the damage is only 20% of the original, because it still burns a little.

However, if you produce a pool of slippery Grease which is disbelieved, it's not working at all.

@eimyr Okay, I'm with you so far.

I'm saying that as written non-damage portions of the spell won't do anything.

@eimyr Well, it's only 20% real.

your GM might overrule this, but in principle if you have spell that does something non-damaging, it either is believed (and it works) or not (and it doesn't).

The rules are unclear about this. I'm trying to make a case to my GM so that he will rule something like that 20% less effective, or 20% less space occupied by the effect.

d20pfsrd.com/magic/3rd-party-spells/…

this is very clear

in shadow conjuration every numerical effect on non-believer is reduced by 90%, every binary effect has 10% chance of happening

source

d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/shadow-evocation

I don't find it silly...

You have to keep reminding yourself that it's an illusion for it to not work.

Your senses are still affected, but your brain chooses to ignore it.

evocation magic, however, is different

> Non-damaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect.

d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/shadow-evocation

Well, this difference is what makes or breaks the feat that started this part of the discussion. Solid Shadows

If you rule it binary, then indeed, that feat wouldn't help much with non-damaging spells at all.

okay, once again...

evocation: damage is reduced by 100-X%, non damage does not work

conjuration: damage and all other numerical effects (summon HP) is reduced by 100-X%, non-damage effect have X% of chance of happening

(assuming the disbelieve save roll DC is beaten by the target)

I think this makes sense.

not a lot of it, but at least some

@eimyr Target succeeds Will save; disbelieves illusion. Spell effect still happens, because the magic is 20% real. How does the effect then manifest? Take Grease as example.

Well, I disbelieve this puddle of Grease. My eyes still tell me it's there, my ears hear my splashing footsteps. My brain knows it's not real. My legs naturally stiffen as they feel slippery substance that I know is not there.

To me (and the guide author) it doesn't make sense if the spell area, duration, etc are all the same as if it was 100% real, and then just be real only 20% of the time. What the author is suggesting as an alternative ruling, is to tweak the other spell parameters instead: shorter duration, smaller area, one step down (exhaustion becomes fatigued, blinded becomes dazzled, etc).

I have X% chance my brain won't tell my legs to relax and I'll have to use my dexterity not to fall over.

well, it's fair to rule that

I'm just saying that I would not automatically dismiss the vanilla ruling as stupid

@eimyr Okay, your explanation starts making more sense to me now. But in that case, would you re-roll every round, or like... would you be effected once every 5 rounds or something?

I don't know. Every time I interact with the illusion? I guess?

It's just a single roll.

If Grease says I have to make a roll every turn, then I would.

Assume you're standing in the puddle of grease, because the last three rounds you were absolutely convinced it was not real.

When the conjured stuff would cause me (normally) to roll anything, I would roll X% chance die to see if it happens.

Yeah, and now the grease just seems a bit more slippery aaand whoops, my leg slipped. I should have paid attention.

What about Glitterdust? Its particles can make invisible creatures more easy to detect. My party could easily voluntarily fail their Will save and believe. Even if the invisible creature disbelieves the effect (so only 20% chance to be blinded by it), the particles would still reveal its location. What do you think?

Sorry, I have to go now.

ttfn