D&D General 50 Years. The Least Popular Class Is......

[Zardnaar]

I was reading an old Dragon or Dungeon magazine and they mention this Class being the least popular.

It may not be the literal least popular Class of all time but I am referring to a Class that saw wide release across multiple editions. Not one limited to a single edition or obscure splat book or dragon magazine.

In 30 years I have seen this Class 3 times iirc. Maybe 4. Rarely used even as an NPC.

Once in Castles and Crusades
Once in 3.0 (with shadow adept in 2002)
Once in 2E (maybe once more in 1E or 2E).

The Class? The poor neglected Illusionist. It's probably more popular than some other wizard subclasses pre 5E at least but they were excluded from pre 1989 D&D and 4E so somewhat understandable.

I have my suspicions why. Main reason you need a creative player and co operating DM. And post 1989 they lost niche protection with critical spells eg chromatic orb, greater invisibility, phantasmal killer or hypnotic pattern. There's also a fine line between creative and hogging the spotlight and arguing over subjective interpretations and what a spell can do vs 10d6 psychic damage.

I might see another one in soon in C&C. The class seems to be an occasional one in pre 3E and OSR games usually a gnome. At least in 1E and C&C they have exclusive spells and the 2024 one looks good.

 

[JEB]

I first encountered the illusionist when paging through the 1e PHB as a kid, and I was intrigued by them as an alternate wizard with their own magic. But after closer review as an adult, it became plain how underpowered they were. Plus the need for heavy creativity/DM support as you noted, @Zardnaar. Still a neat idea, though, just not sure it'll ever be as broadly appealing as other wizard archetypes.

 

[Zardnaar]

I first encountered the illusionist when paging through the 1e PHB as a kid, and I was intrigued by them as an alternate wizard with their own magic. But after closer review as an adult, it became plain how underpowered they were. Plus the need for heavy creativity/DM support as you noted, @Zardnaar. Still a neat idea, though, just not sure it'll ever be as appealing as other wizard archetypes.

1E Illusionist has exclusive spells the wizards don't get.

1E though control spells get worse as game goes on vs boom. 5E other way around.

 

[Oofta]

Illusions are frequently very difficult to adjudicate which makes it difficult for the DM. I try to be as consistent as possible with rulings but illusion and how they interact along with how they are detected can be headache inducing. At least when they're the primary go-to for a PC.

But I've also rarely even seen anyone try to truly make it their focus. So it's a double edged illusionary sword. People don't try because they aren't sure what will work so DMs don't get a lot of experience adjudicating Illusions.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The 2024 rules are kinder to Illusion magic than any edition we have had in 50 years.

Between the Illusionist subclass, the Trickster Cleric, the Glamour Bard, and the Arcane Trickster, there are now four subclasses partial to Illusion magic, and some guidance (not enough, sadly) to help ensure that illusions work mostly the same table-to-table.

I am keen to play them all.

(There's also an illusion-focused character that I have still to play from the 2014 rules that are no longer possible in 2024; one of the two "legacy-only" builds that I'll crack out if I'm at a table that hasn't updated.)

Compare this to the situation in AD&D, where there was a class, but it had such a high Int and dex requirement to play, that (frankly) I never rolled stats good enough to qualify. It was entirely inaccessible, and cool as it was, it wasn't something actually to be played, in my experience. It wasn't unpopular because it wasn't fun; but it just couldn't be played .

The world is a better place today.

 

[Zardnaar]

The 2024 rules are kinder to Illusion magic than any edition we have had in 50 years.

Between the Illusionist subclass, the Trickster Cleric, the Glamour Bard, and the Arcane Trickster, there are now four subclasses partial to Illusion magic, and some guidance (not enough, sadly) to help ensure that illusions work mostly the same table-to-table.

I am keen to play them all.

(There's also an illusion-focused character that I have still to play from the 2014 rules that are no longer possible in 2024; one of the two "legacy-only" builds that I'll crack out if I'm at a table that hasn't updated.)

Compare this to the situation in AD&D, where there was a class, but it had such a high Int and dex requirement to play, that (frankly) I never rolled stats good enough to qualify. It was entirely inaccessible, and cool as it was, it wasn't something actually to be played, in my experience. It wasn't unpopular because it wasn't fun; but it just couldn't be played .

The world is a better place today.

2024 is

The 2024 rules are kinder to Illusion magic than any edition we have had in 50 years.

Between the Illusionist subclass, the Trickster Cleric, the Glamour Bard, and the Arcane Trickster, there are now four subclasses partial to Illusion magic, and some guidance (not enough, sadly) to help ensure that illusions work mostly the same table-to-table.

I am keen to play them all.

(There's also an illusion-focused character that I have still to play from the 2014 rules that are no longer possible in 2024; one of the two "legacy-only" builds that I'll crack out if I'm at a table that hasn't updated.)

Compare this to the situation in AD&D, where there was a class, but it had such a high Int and dex requirement to play, that (frankly) I never rolled stats good enough to qualify. It was entirely inaccessible, and cool as it was, it wasn't something actually to be played, in my experience. It wasn't unpopular because it wasn't fun; but it just couldn't be played .

The world is a better place today.

Best since 1985 with an *

 

[Kobold Stew]

Best since 1985 with an *

It's an illusory asterisk. (Save to disbelieve).

 

[Zardnaar]

It's an illusory asterisk.

Heh. UA buffs an illusionists so comparatively I think they're better. BUT DM dependent.

2024 might be the best wizard in the phb though and best since then.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah, we've had threads about illusionists, and a lot of people (myself included) have had a bad experience with them. It blows my mind how you can have the following situations pop up in the same game.

1-

Conjurer: "Ok, I'll cast Summon Monster Z and have three wolves appear flanking the BBEG."

DM: "Right, ok."

2-

Illusionist: "Ok, I'll use Phantasmal Force to have three wolves appear flanking the BBEG."

DM: "I don't know, wolves appearing out of thin air? I mean how realistic are they? And are they a breed of wolf native to this area? The BBEG is suspicious and (rolls dice) disbelieves your illusion."

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, we've had threads about illusionists, and a lot of people (myself included) have had a bad experience with them. It blows my mind how you can have the following situations pop up in the same game.

1-

Conjurer: "Ok, I'll cast Summon Monster Z and have three wolves appear flanking the BBEG."

DM: "Right, ok."

2-

Illusionist: "Ok, I'll use Phantasmal Force to have three wolves appear flanking the BBEG."

DM: "I don't know, wolves appearing out of thin air? I mean how realistic are they? And are they a breed of wolf native to this area? The BBEG is suspicious and (rolls dice) disbelieves your illusion."

Yup. I Don't think that's the best use of illusions either. At best they hit it once and realize what's up.

They're easier for the DM NPCs I suppose.

Illusionist as controller and buffer probably better (depending on editon).