The Illusionist: Class, Background or Theme?

[Leatherhead]

I thought Chromatic Orb was an Evocation?

Like one of the few that was actually worth having.

 

[Hussar]

For an illusionist to be a class, it's going to have to be fundamentally different from a wizard. IOW, it has to be as different from a wizard as a wizard is from, say, a cleric or druid. (or ranger or thief for that matter)

Which means that a "Class" illusionist won't look very much like any edition's illusionist. Even in AD&D, the only difference between an illusionist and an MU was the spell list. And those have been folded together for a long time, and even back then there was considerable overlap between the lists.

If that's the only difference, then Theme is the best way to go. OTOH, if we want Illusionist to be a class, we're going to have to make some serious changes. New armor and whatnot. Maybe a different casting system - something like the Shadowcaster from the 3e Tome of Magic. That would certainly make it a new class. ((Honestly, I would like to see that as the means for creating specialist caster classes.))

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think that the pertinent question about whether something could be a theme or background is this - does it make sense for any class to have that as a background or theme? If it doesn't , then it shouldn't be a background or theme.

For me, a commoner illusionist rogue, or an illusionist guardian fighter don't seem to make sense, so I'd go for class.


Cheers

 

[Doug McCrae]

For me, a commoner illusionist rogue, or an illusionist guardian fighter don't seem to make sense, so I'd go for class.

Both make sense to me, the first a bit more so. Gnomes could be fighter/illusionists or illusionist/thieves in 1e, so there's some precedence for it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Let's not have an artificial completionism in schemes, though. Include only the ones that are truly iconic. The Illusionist (which includes a large chunk of Enchantment, too), the Necromancer, and the Summoner all qualify. Probably also a Thaumaturge (Transmutation and a bit of Evocation), unless that's the generalist shtick. But the Abjurer? Not so much.

Maybe the abjurer needs better marketing. Call him a white witch. Also, illusionists/beguilers are probably better named as enchanters.

Necromancer, diabolist, shaman, and oracle all seem like strong concepts to me. Though there's a big question as to whether we determine a scheme/class on the basis of what it can do, or where its power comes from. Or both. Also D&D magic has not traditionally revolved around dealing with various types of disembodied entities, such as the dead, demons, or spirits.

 

[Hussar]

I think that the pertinent question about whether something could be a theme or background is this - does it make sense for any class to have that as a background or theme? If it doesn't , then it shouldn't be a background or theme.

For me, a commoner illusionist rogue, or an illusionist guardian fighter don't seem to make sense, so I'd go for class.


Cheers

Illusionist Guardian Fighter, maybe not. But, Illusionist Commoner Bard certainly does. And I'm not too much against an illusionist rogue - that's what a shadowdancer is isn't it?

And, I could see various priests (Priest of Mask from FR forex) having an Illusionist theme.

 

[The Shadow]

Maybe the abjurer needs better marketing. Call him a white witch.

He'll need a much more interesting spell list to pull that off.

Just how sacred a cow are Gygax's spell schools? Honestly, they don't seem all that well thought out.

Also, illusionists/beguilers are probably better named as enchanters.

I could get on board with that, especially if they went all Arthurian with the fluff. But Illusionist is the term with D&D tradition behind it.

Necromancer, diabolist, shaman, and oracle all seem like strong concepts to me. Though there's a big question as to whether we determine a scheme/class on the basis of what it can do, or where its power comes from. Or both. Also D&D magic has not traditionally revolved around dealing with various types of disembodied entities, such as the dead, demons, or spirits.

I think they've already said they want Necromancer to be a theme, so that both wizards and clerics can take it.

Diabolist is basically a variant of Summoner.

Shaman feels more druidy to me.

Oracle... Maybe. I do think there's a niche for a Diviner specialist, though I don't know how many players will be interested.

 

[Authweight]

I would rather see it as its own class. For one thing, I think that it should have non-vancian resource management. An illusionist seems best suited to having many weaker spells that can confuse, disrupt, and cause all sorts of mischief. That simply doesn't sit right in a vancian system, where spells are major important resources to be used with care. If the illusionist was merely a wizard specialization, then his illusion spells would have to be on the same power level as normal wizard spells, and that seems too strong for most illusion spells. An illusionist should, in my opinion, have a good list of at-will spells that expand as he levels, giving him great versatility. On top of this he should have either encounter abilities or daily abilities. If he has dailies, they should be like the 3e sorcerer. Encounter powers would best be managed as spell points.

Actually, if I were to design it, I would give the illusionist spell slots. Half the spell slots would be encounter, and half would be daily, but they would tap the same pool of spells. So if an illusionist had 6 spell slots, then the first 3 spells he casts in an encounter would recharge after the encounter. The slots he expends after this would come out of his daily pool. He would have a daily resource that would let him push himself, but each encounter he would always have about half of his potential ready to go no matter what.

That's just one way to do it though, and probably not a very good way. The point is, I want an illusionist to be activating and maintaining many illusions every single encounter, and that doesn't sit well with the wizards vancian mechanics.

 

[jadrax]

f the illusionist was merely a wizard specialization, then his illusion spells would have to be on the same power level as normal wizard spells, and that seems too strong for most illusion spells.

As far as I can see, if it becomes a theme any spell-caster with possible Illusion Spells would be able to take it, so you could have sorcerer illusionists, warlock illusionists and even cleric illusionists.

 

[Authweight]

As far as I can see, if it becomes a theme any spell-caster with possible Illusion Spells would be able to take it, so you could have sorcerer illusionists, warlock illusionists and even cleric illusionists.

We know, however, that your spell list and basic resource management come from class not theme. If illusionists are to have a different spell list made for a different resource management system, it needs its own class.