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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Puggins" data-source="post: 4543324" data-attributes="member: 12386">Are you talking about the mechanical difference or about the thematic difference?  Causing direct, physical damage is abstracted (correctly, IMO) and no longer means that you're taking a dagger or a fireball to flesh.  It represents harming the individual's ability to defend himself.  Look at the (free) Dragon Article "Characters with Class: Wizards", in which illusions are featured.  They still do damage most of the time, representing the mental toll they take on the target.That said, you are correct in saying that the illusionist is hard to replicate in 4e, at least completely.  None of the at-wills are illusion-heavy.  Most levels give you at least one option for an illusion spell, and the cantrips are very nice in terms of pulling off what used to be low-level illusions, but the translation isn't perfect.  This will likely be improved possibly remedied by Arcane Power.Of course, this can be remedied by simply reflavoring the powers.  But I'm betting you're not too hot on that, right?How odd.  You first point that 4e is not varied enough in a mechanical sense ("I can't model an illusionist"), then you say that mechanical variety is unneeded.  The mechanical options in 4e give you far more variety in character options than was possible before in the case of non-pure wizard characters.  Want a reasonable fighter/mage?  No problem, 4e can do that.  Want a fighter that has a good base of skill support?  Sure, you can do that too.  Want to play a cleric of a god of thieves without gimping yourself?  Check!You're looking for specific examples of variety, and I will happily agree that 4e can't cover every single character concept right off the bat.  Of course, 3.5e couldn't either- it covered less ground than 4e, in fact.  It did cover some cases that 4e doesn't, but 4e covers plenty that 3.5e couldn't in a satisfactory manner.If you're looking for a dedicated illusionist from core, then 4e fails.  I'll argue that your demands there are fairly narrow, though, and won't apply to anyone looking to make an organic character- why wouldn't a wizard who prefers illusions not want to learn even the most fundamental attack spells if he's going out adventuring, for example?  I'd figure he'd want magic missile or fire burst as a backup, no?</blockquote>

Verification