The poor illusionist...

[jodyjohnson]

I think the Spellcraft thing and Detect Magic are killers for Illusionists as primary casters from the beginning. Since Conjurer/Summoners got their boost from Augment Summoning maybe Illusionists just need a nudge in the lower levels.

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=90621

Maybe switch Sleight of Hand for Bluff - or both.

 

[artent]

re:

I've use an enemies immunity to illusion to great benefit. I cast a giant glowing Neon sign centered above their head, they tried to run away to their secret encampment and we just followed at a leasurly pace from a distance.

You can also mix illusion with other types of spells to throw them off gaurd, summon a few monsters..and then illusion up a ton more of the same kind, it'll work like a mirror image for your pets.

Cast some of your lower level disguise spells to make it appear that you have a giant white muffler over your hands..can't see you casting now!

Mirror Image is still one of the most potent lower lvl defensive spells in the game.

 

[EtherHulkRending]

So? Illusions are the only spells that are severly effected by it. Even if someone rolls a spellcraft on fireball, its still a fireball.

Well, you're really only losing the effectiveness of the various Image spells (silent image, major image, etc). The illusionist still has the blur, displacement, disguise/alter self, invis, greater ivis, phastasmal killer, mirror image, and others.

Illusionist is still one of my top three favorite types of wizards, with Conjurer and Evoker. There's a LOT you can do with it.

 

[Cassius_the_Elf]

Yeah, I think an illusionist has a lot of extra problems than any other wizard type, but that is not all bad

I'd say that any specialist wizard PC should do some extra work beforehand (with the agreement of their DM of course). Maybe should get access to some unique or specialist spells from other sources than the PHB? Give them a bit extra to compensate for any weakness as it matters little if the enemy wizard makes his spellcraft roll but has no idea what the spell is anyway as it is so rare?

Maybe spells from specialist add on guides or other world systems that you normally would not allow? This brings back a little flavour of the 1st ed illusionist with his unique spells?

 

[apsuman]

I'm not trying to ruin the nostalgia, but IIRC, in 1e, the illusionist had killer requirements (like DEX 16). Only had 7 levels of spells (I might be wrong here) like a cleric. And in their list of 7th level spells was every "1st level magic-user spell". "Great I get to be level 16 (or whatever) and NOW I get to cast magic missile."

More than the other classes, illusionists need to be creative. Beyond that they need to rely on spells from other schools to supliment their specialty.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I don't have a problem with the new Invisibility and Greater Invisibility. They were begging for a nerf.

However, I do have a problem with the image spells. When one character makes a save and tells other characters that it's an illusion, it seriously strains the suspension of disbelief when other people have to make saves to see through them as well. Did they think the first guy was lying?

It suspends disbelief when you swing at a slow and bulky earth elemental, "miss" and you still think it's a real elemental, when the illusion does not replicate the sense of touch.

It doesn't help that "interaction" is not clearly defined. IMC I'm thinking only cold iron weapons should dissipate illusions with Will disbelief saves. Then again, I've only used the defense spells (no saves).

The Spellcraft issue is serious as well, and True Seeing really does nerf the school into oblivion at higher levels.

Also, for Spellcraft, think, DMs, Think! There are certain rolls that the Players should not get to roll-- like hear noise.

Spellcraft checks are really easy to make, even if the players can only hear the verbal components. So, I roll the dice secretly, they make it, and the problem remains.

I suggest illusionists take Silent Spell then

It kinda surprises me that no one has mentioned the Sleight of Hand skill like the bluff skill was mentioned, or the disguise skill for that matter. All of these skills can help the illusionist and since your primary stat is Int then you should have a lot of those extra skill points.

Alas, there are no game rules on how to use Sleight of Hand to hide spellcasting (not in 3.0, that is) or Bluff to ... do what?

Maybe ventriloquism needs to be modified to make a spell sound like something else (or just gibberish).

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

Amuses me

ventriloquism[/i] needs to be modified to make a spell sound like something else (or just gibberish).

No game rules? Are we not playing a game that we *all* alter to one level or another? That is what alot of this very thread has been about and even that last line was about. So there are no *specific* examples of how to use it, if the book had *specific* uses of every skill then it would be over 600 pages, and then we would get gripes about how since this or that was not specifically addressed then it can't be done.

As far as specific uses for the sleight of hand skill. Sleight of hand is used with the feint action; which, in theory, is similar to what you are trying to do here. IIRC, it does not specifically say that *both* hands be free for you to use somantic components in spells, since you can hold an item in your hand and still cast. So, instead of holding something in that other hand, the character does some study and tries to figure out the exact movements for a "fireball" spell (through that ever present spellcraft roll) and then the next time he wants to cast that illusion spell he starts by making a sleight of hand check (DC say the opposing wizards spellcraft roll) to see if he can fool him into thinking it is a fireball he is casting, and hence distracting his eyes from the less flamboyent movements of his other hand, which are actually casting the real spell. It's all in misdirection, as the one poster said about liers always having the advantage.

Bluff would do the same thing for verbal components. Make the DC the opposing wizard's spellcraft check result to fool him into thinking it was a different spell cause the caster *emphasized* certain words over others.

Also think about using different material components. If you make sure your enemy sees a certain component flourishly produced that should at least grant you a circumstance bonus to his roll, say a -2 or even -4 if it is a particularly deadly spell that component is used for.

I hope I've explained myself well, am at work and haven't slept in a while.

Just my two cents but remember the DM's job is to take the spirit of the rules first and the letter of the rules second.

 

[BASHMAN]

Illusionists

Hey, you wanna play a game with good old fashioned illusionists? Look for Castles and Crusades in the Fall!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

No game rules? Are we not playing a game that we *all* alter to one level or another? That is what alot of this very thread has been about and even that last line was about. So there are no *specific* examples of how to use it, if the book had *specific* uses of every skill then it would be over 600 pages, and then we would get gripes about how since this or that was not specifically addressed then it can't be done.

No, but I think it's important something like illusions be standardized precisely because they're so unclear.

As far as specific uses for the sleight of hand skill. Sleight of hand is used with the feint action; which, in theory, is similar to what you are trying to do here. IIRC, it does not specifically say that *both* hands be free for you to use somantic components in spells, since you can hold an item in your hand and still cast. So, instead of holding something in that other hand, the character does some study and tries to figure out the exact movements for a "fireball" spell (through that ever present spellcraft roll) and then the next time he wants to cast that illusion spell he starts by making a sleight of hand check (DC say the opposing wizards spellcraft roll) to see if he can fool him into thinking it is a fireball he is casting, and hence distracting his eyes from the less flamboyent movements of his other hand, which are actually casting the real spell. It's all in misdirection, as the one poster said about liers always having the advantage.

That is a very good point, but they still have to take Silent Spell.

Of course, it's going to be funny when the PC mage makes his Spellcraft, realizes it's a fake fireball, takes it, then gets hit by a real fireball next round. You couldn't do that in 2e

Bluff would do the same thing for verbal components. Make the DC the opposing wizard's spellcraft check result to fool him into thinking it was a different spell cause the caster *emphasized* certain words over others.

This is on shaky ground. None of us know what a spell really sounds like - they probably use different words.

Also think about using different material components. If you make sure your enemy sees a certain component flourishly produced that should at least grant you a circumstance bonus to his roll, say a -2 or even -4 if it is a particularly deadly spell that component is used for.

I hope I've explained myself well, am at work and haven't slept in a while.

Just my two cents but remember the DM's job is to take the spirit of the rules first and the letter of the rules second.

I like this one.

You will notice I had more questions than this one. There wasn't much on how to deal with Will disbelief saves in groups.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

true

{This is on shaky ground. None of us know what a spell really sounds like - they probably use different words.}

That's true, but in some ways that works to your advantage, since we don't know what they sound like it isn't hard to wonder if it would be possible to muddle things a bit. If they said specifically what each spell sounded like then I would agree that this wouldn't work, but since they don't...

Take real work magick (not saying I believe in it or anything else) where it isn't the words that make the spell work perse, but they will behind them. You supposedly use much the same wording in some system for all spells, since the words are more of a meditative focus aspect than the actual words of the written spell. I see it more like the chanting of buddhists, the chant is used to focus the mind, this is why still spell works. The words are a crutch that most people *think* they need but those who realize what they are (and take the feat) realize that the magick works without the crutch, it's just harder. In this kind of view it would be possible to emphasize certain tones or chants during the course of the spell and maybe at least grant a circumstance modifier. Course this may not be to everyone's liking and so I offer as merely a suggestion of one possible solution. I never really liked vancian magic in the first place.