Timeline for Clothier's Closet via Shadow Conjuration ... Any wrinkles?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 15, 2022 at 23:05 | history | edited | Chemus | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed inconsistency regarding SR. Removed '20% pockets' references as incorrect.
|
| Mar 15, 2022 at 22:51 | history | edited | Chemus | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed inconsistency regarding SR. Removed '20% pockets' references as incorrect.
|
| Jul 8, 2017 at 15:48 | history | edited | Chemus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added support for pockets failing to hold objects.
|
| Jul 8, 2017 at 15:42 | comment | added | Chemus | @KRyan I've added the support for my pockets claim in: "Shadow objects or substances have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they are 20% likely to work." and the objects automatically make saving throws versus shadow conjuration, and attended objects get a save with their attendant's bonuses. It's whether the attendant can forgo the save that's the pith of the other question | |
| Jul 8, 2017 at 15:41 | history | edited | Chemus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added support for pockets failing to hold objects.
|
| Jul 8, 2017 at 15:37 | comment | added | Chemus | @thedarkwanderer Yes, I used perhaps too much license to say 'see through'. | |
| Jul 8, 2017 at 15:32 | comment | added | KRyan | I don't even buy that the quasi-reality of the spell effect extends that far or in that fashion. If nothing else, the answer would be improved by spending some time establishing that; currently it seems implicitly assumed. | |
| Jul 8, 2017 at 15:32 | comment | added | Please stop being evil | They don't see through the clothes when they succeed, they see you clothed in 'vague shadowy form' s (+transparent images on top of that). Important difference. | |
| Jul 8, 2017 at 15:30 | comment | added | Chemus | @KRyan Which is why I have another question on the stack. Perhaps I ought not have added the pockets issue without resolving it first. | |
| Jul 8, 2017 at 15:28 | comment | added | KRyan | The pockets and things working only 20% of the time is a real stretch. Not convinced there. | |
| Jul 8, 2017 at 14:08 | history | edited | Chemus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added analysis inspired by comments.
|
| Jul 8, 2017 at 13:39 | comment | added | Chemus | Whoops, that save is 16, so 25%+ see through the clothes. | |
| Jul 8, 2017 at 13:33 | comment | added | Chemus | @Crai The weather might be considered to be an object, thus automatically making the bonuses 80% lower (+1 Fort vs cold, etc). Regarding economics: perhaps. Who'll wear clothes that roughly 20%+ percent of folks might see through (usually 17 will save) especially wise and leveled folks, and whose bonuses versus weather, etc are greatly diminished? In fact, 20%+ of buyers will, upon examining the clothes discover their nature, and the clothes would 'fall' off the racks 80% of the time. | |
| Jul 8, 2017 at 13:23 | comment | added | Crai | Thanks to Chemus and the others for all your insights. Also to note, some of mimicked outfits have game mechanic components to them. Like the Cold Weather Outfit which grants the wearer a +5 to FORT saves against exposure maladies from cold weather. It's assumed the wearers of such clothes will "believe" they're real in order to benefit from them. But yeah, I agree with HICC ... this combo is a macroeconomic game-wrecker... | |
| Jul 8, 2017 at 13:15 | vote | accept | Crai | ||
| Jul 7, 2017 at 23:28 | comment | added | Hey I Can Chan | I see the spell more it as a low level version of fabricate that turns a 100-gp gem into clothes… and that, if you can dodge that component like with a boon trap of clothier's closet, has unimaginably goofy effects on the campaign. The spell makes the worldbuilding part of my brain hurt is all. | |
| Jul 7, 2017 at 23:19 | comment | added | Chemus | @HeyICanChan It's merely a very limited version of true creation that only makes clothing. | |
| Jul 7, 2017 at 19:11 | comment | added | Hey I Can Chan | I might be tempted to rule that because "any effect created by shadow conjuration allows spell resistance, even if the spell it is simulating does not" that the clothing remains an effect created by the spell therefore magical therefore the clothes capable of being dispelled when handled by a creature with a SR. (That's largely because I hate the spell clothier's closet, and I'm always tempted to make a house rule changing the spell to the transmutation school and make everyone cast it as if he had a Mark of Hospitality.) | |
| Jul 7, 2017 at 5:54 | comment | added | Chemus | @Tristian There's no mention of sun damage to normal materials, but if the spell mimicked such materials, then they'd be 80% weaker, so usually fail faster. | |
| Jul 7, 2017 at 5:51 | comment | added | Tristian | Being immediately reminded of the drow armor in AD&D that dissolved in sunlight, would this particular combination of shadow magic and fabrication spells creates objects that are subject to damage from prolonged exposure to sunlight? Or just the reduced HP? | |
| Jul 7, 2017 at 4:19 | history | edited | Chemus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed SR section
|
| Jul 7, 2017 at 4:01 | history | edited | Chemus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Jul 7, 2017 at 3:56 | history | answered | Chemus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |