Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9469410" data-attributes="member: 6877472">My issue with this has always been "why play an illusionist when you can play a spellcaster who can manifest real effects?".Sure, maybe you can get away with using a lower level spell slot in this scenario than your buddy caster, but it still feels like you'd be better off with two Conjurers or Evokers in most cases than one basically supporting an Illusionist.And you know, I get it, the idea of playing an Illusionist sounds like great fun.  I always thought so...until I actually played one and discovered that most DM's have this innate dislike of people tricking or conning their NPC's in any way.  People in general always feel like it would be much harder to trick them than it actually would be, which is a problem in so many ways."I don't see how someone could sneak up on a guy on open ground" despite it being totally possible."You couldn't possibly trick someone into buying a castle" but people have sold bridges...And so on, and so forth.  Create a wall of force, nobody is running headlong into it.  Create an illusion of a wall of force, everyone is up and touching it, as it's obviously fake.And I'm not calling these people bad DM's for it, it's a combination of human nature plus their role as referee to make sure that players aren't breaking the game by getting away with too much.  You want to basically get the effect of a fifth level spell with a second level one by tricking people into thinking they are hemmed in by an invincible force field?  That sounds incredibly busted!  That can't be what was intended!And that's before we get into all the monsters who, over the years, have various immunities to illusions in general.  Something thankfully 5e is light on, but then you can have even lower tier threats with stuff like:[ATTACH=full]381062[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]381063[/ATTACH]Because f*** illusions in particular, I guess.</blockquote>

Verification