D&D 5E Defining Traits of the D&D classes

[steeldragons]

I am wondering if illusionist could be a very solid wizard tradition that would appeal to fans of illusionist as a separate class.

Early in 3E, I had a player make a wizard (illusionist) and he asked if it was possible for all his spells to be "unreal". That is, he chose things like fireball but it wasn't a real fireball, it was an illusion. Objects didn't burn, etc..people only thought they did.

We played with it, and it was pretty cool. We adopted some rules (better saves for creatures since the illusionist couldn't trick creatures as easily, eg.)

I used "subdual" damage (ie, I kept a separate list of the amount of "damage" the illusionist did. If it ever exceeded the targets current HP, the target would fall unconscious. We tried a save or die rather than unconscious too, seemed too swingy.)

The player moved and took the illusionist with him, but I've always felt it was something that with a little more work would be very cool.

In 5E it would be a Wizard, with the illusionist tradition. It would for all appearances "look" like a mage (a generalist). he would use the same spell list, but they would all be illusions. Fireball would be an illusion, eg. Some extra spells for his tradition (phantasmal killer) would be fine. He would get some kind of bonus for spells that are already illusions available to other wizards (such as mirror image). Not sure what...increased DC?

I think it is possible. What do you illusionist fans think?

I like it. I think it's a good start. Like the "subdual damage" idea.

Personally, I prefer the Illusionist to have their own spell list...to further the separation of Illusionist tradition from general mage, i.e. instead of the Ilt. casting "Fireball" but its an illusion, they cast Phantasmal Force (or Minor/Major Image of whatever) that looks like a Fireball.

Maybe some kind of "at will" illusion/phantasm that does "fake" damage leading to unconsciousness. So generating images becomes, as it should be, the Illusionist's specialties. Specific effects: like Mirror Image, Phantom Steed, Phantasmal Killer, Shadow-magic/walking stuff would still be their own spells, but just generating images (with or without sounds) could be an at-will ability (at least of a certain size that could increase with level).

But yes, I like where this could be going.
--SD

 

[jrowland]

I like it. I think it's a good start. Like the "subdual damage" idea.

Personally, I prefer the Illusionist to have their own spell list...to further the separation of Illusionist tradition from general mage, i.e. instead of the Ilt. casting "Fireball" but its an illusion, they cast Phantasmal Force (or Minor/Major Image of whatever) that looks like a Fireball.

Maybe some kind of "at will" illusion/phantasm that does "fake" damage leading to unconsciousness. So generating images becomes, as it should be, the Illusionist's specialties. Specific effects: like Mirror Image, Phantom Steed, Phantasmal Killer, Shadow-magic/walking stuff would still be their own spells, but just generating images (with or without sounds) could be an at-will ability (at least of a certain size that could increase with level).

But yes, I like where this could be going.
--SD

That's a good point. I was trying to keep it within the baliwick of wizard, so its own spell list wouldn't fly in this thought-exercise. But a class feature "at will" that allows the illusionist to cast any spell in their spellbook as an at-will version of it. The illusionist could therefore spam "fake" fireballs if fireball was in their spellbook. Once a creature "interacts" with it, the illusion is ruined, of course. But imagine their surprise when a real one then booms!

It makes for some wonky interactions, (what does a spam-able illusion of an illusion spell do? lol) But I think it could be done well enough. Add a charlatan background and a specialty like arcane trickster and your almost there.

 

[Tony Vargas]

OK, moving on to the Illusionist. It's an interesting one, actually. Again, if we look at the class's history for it's defining characteristics and /don't/ count mere wizard-specialities as the Illusionist, we find a rather clear picture, because the Illusionist didn't exist as a class in 2e or later. Sadly, I'm no conversant with the 0D&D Illusionist, but the 1e Illusionist had the following defining traits:

• He required more Dexterity than a magic-user.
• His spellcasting abilities were generally /inferior/ to those of the magic-user (only 7 levels of spells, a decidedly smaller spell list).
• A few of his spells had no verbal components, which was unique.
• His spells dealt with Illusions (obviously) that affected the mind, but also with images that were real in the sense of not being 'all in your head,' and with light and shadow.
• The illusionists use of 'shadow' included shadow-stuff that could make an illusion quasi-real (Shadow Monsters and similar spells), and was also associated with the mysterious Plane of Shadow (ie: the Shadow Walk spell).
• 1e Illusions acted just like the real thing if you failed your save, and you saved only if you consciously dis-believed, so the Illusionist's general inferiority as a caster was 'balanced' by the credulity of his enemies. This prettymuch put the illusionist's effectiveness at the whim of the DM.

Given 5e's mandate to make each class mechanically distinct, and given that there are already /3/ arcane classes, how could the Illusionist be handled?

Well, it could be less Vancian. The Illusionist might have a very small number of spells with very broad applicability, for instance. So where a Wizard might prepare either fireball or lightning bolt, the Illusionist would just have Phantasmal Forces, that he could use a number of times per day, and cause to seem to be fire, lightning, cold, or other sort of attack. Similarly, where another caster would select a specific summoning spells, the Illusionist's Shadow Monster could seem to be any sort of creature. The illusionist's spells could be difficult to resist until he's 'found out,' then much easier (disadvantage on saves until successful, then advantage, perhaps?).

 

[Remathilis]

At the risk of violating my own 1.), I'm thinking Illusionist is best a wizard tradition. Specialization of schools seems like an element of the wizard class for a while now. Specialists were barely a class in 2e, and they were an option in 3 and a build in 4. Certainly, you can have some unique features in an illusionist tradition (check out the illusionist abilities from UA, Pathfinder, or the Master Specialist class, as well as those in 2e Spell & Magic for ideas) but they've been lumped with wizards for a while now.

THAT SAID

A "illusionist" class, or a class themed around magical illusions and trickery (akin to the beguiler) might be a good supplemental class. Especially one who brings some unique illusions to the table (not those in the PHB) and can fill a few niches (traps, bluffs, sneaks, buffs, and de-buffs all seem illusionary). It might not even be a bad idea to mix in a hearty dose of summons and enchantments and make a good witch/lay-wizard class down the pipe.

So for now, I'll take a wizard tradition in the PHB and good "subtle" magic caster in a further supplement where it can get full treatment.

 

[GameDoc]

ILLUSIONIST
I really like the backstory/fluff for illusionists in Castles & Crusades. They are similar, but not identical to a wizard, both being referred to as different traditions from among the larger category of magi. Illusionist are the ones who "make a mockery of reality itself" and are kind of presented as being a little more scary (or at least creepy) than wizards because you never know what is real. They play mind games, they distort your perception, they use their powers to charm you into doing things you don't really want to or blind you to the reality of what is going on so that you do their bidding all the while thinking you are acting of your own volition. It's not just that they bend light, make ghost sounds, or mesmerize you with colorful patterns. They can get your mind allow your body to do things you can't. They can give you a boost in strength or dexterity. They can even charm you into shaking off an injury.

I don't really have much thought to the spell mechanics. I'd be just as happy to have them get a separate spell list and then cast like a wizard (or better yet a cleric - prepared spells and number of slots per day are not completely superimposed on one another). Or if they can come up with something else cool, so be it. I do think C&C has a great concept in granting them healing spells with the idea its a psychosomatic effect, but real all the same.

I'd also see the illusionist benefiting from social skills in addition to lore - bluff, diplomacy, insight.

WARLORD
I like the idea of having them use expertise dice, but for different purposes than the fighter. Yeah, it's a shared mechanic, but so are the spellcasting of clerics and wizards. They just get a different list. So give the warlord a different list of maneuvers from the fighter. Since healing is potentially one of the core traits of the warlord, perhaps one use of his expertise dice could be "Inspiring Word" and he rolls the dice and heals an ally for that amount.

Moreover, I like the idea of druids, bards, warlords, and even illusionists making significant contributions to the party's non Hit Die healing resources. I love clerics, but one thing I thought was a good design goal they had in 4e was to make clerics a class you chose because you wanted to play a cleric, not because someone had to do it so the party could heal up in the middle of a fight.

One other thing:

BARBARIAN
Someone mentioned earlier that a core feature would be having the largest Hit Dice. I would presume that means a d12. That begs the question: Dow a hill dwarf barbarian get d20 Hit Dice?

 

[Tony Vargas]

At the risk of violating my own 1.), I'm thinking Illusionist is best a wizard tradition.

Please don't. One thing I really liked about this thread was taking the 'any PH1 class is in' idea seriously. (even though only 3.5 and 4e even /had/ a PH2)

THAT SAID

A "illusionist" class, or a class themed around magical illusions and trickery (akin to the beguiler) might be a good supplemental class. Especially one who brings some unique illusions to the table (not those in the PHB) and can fill a few niches (traps, bluffs, sneaks, buffs, and de-buffs all seem illusionary).

Going back to the illusionist's roots, we see a class that can't cast general magic-user spells until 14th level, and who has many spells a magic-user cannot cast, at all (ever). It's unique spells are un-real or quasi-real or deal with light & shadow in some way. That could make a worthy class, if, in accord with another of 5e's mandates, it's made mechanically distinct - that is, not strictly-speaking Vancian like the Wizard.

 

[gyor]

OK, moving on to the Illusionist. It's an interesting one, actually. Again, if we look at the class's history for it's defining characteristics and /don't/ count mere wizard-specialities as the Illusionist, we find a rather clear picture, because the Illusionist didn't exist as a class in 2e or later. Sadly, I'm no conversant with the 0D&D Illusionist, but the 1e Illusionist had the following defining traits:

• He required more Dexterity than a magic-user.
• His spellcasting abilities were generally /inferior/ to those of the magic-user (only 7 levels of spells, a decidedly smaller spell list).
• A few of his spells had no verbal components, which was unique.
• His spells dealt with Illusions (obviously) that affected the mind, but also with images that were real in the sense of not being 'all in your head,' and with light and shadow.
• The illusionists use of 'shadow' included shadow-stuff that could make an illusion quasi-real (Shadow Monsters and similar spells), and was also associated with the mysterious Plane of Shadow (ie: the Shadow Walk spell).
• 1e Illusions acted just like the real thing if you failed your save, and you saved only if you consciously dis-believed, so the Illusionist's general inferiority as a caster was 'balanced' by the credulity of his enemies. This prettymuch put the illusionist's effectiveness at the whim of the DM.

Given 5e's mandate to make each class mechanically distinct, and given that there are already /3/ arcane classes, how could the Illusionist be handled?

Well, it could be less Vancian. The Illusionist might have a very small number of spells with very broad applicability, for instance. So where a Wizard might prepare either fireball or lightning bolt, the Illusionist would just have Phantasmal Forces, that he could use a number of times per day, and cause to seem to be fire, lightning, cold, or other sort of attack. Similarly, where another caster would select a specific summoning spells, the Illusionist's Shadow Monster could seem to be any sort of creature. The illusionist's spells could be difficult to resist until he's 'found out,' then much easier (disadvantage on saves until successful, then advantage, perhaps?).

Actually they basically did have the Illusionist class in 3.5 they just call it a beguiler, the flavours basically the same, a focus on illusion, enchantment spells, with a smattering of others, dex is important to Beguilers too and I'm betting someone more familar with the class illusionist could find more common ground. It did have new tricks such as ignoring spell resistance in certain situtations catching people by surpise with spells, but all that would fit an illusionist as well thematically.

Going by the Beguiler name, but acknowledging the Illusionist roots, means no confusion with the the Illusionist specialty wizard.

One thought, if specialize wizards are in as a,wizard tradition, does that mean wizard ate Necromancer the way, the way the fighter ate the Slayer specialty?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Actually they basically did have the Illusionist class in 3.5 they just call it a beguiler, the flavours basically the same, a focus on illusion, enchantment spells, with a smattering of others

Illusionists definitely weren't enchanters. And, they combined both sorts of D&D illusions. One was the illusory image, which was really visible, though not real. The clearest example is old-school 'Light' which was an 'illusion' but shed real light (Light eventually became an evocation, narrowing the meaning of illusion). The other was the 'phanstasm' the illusion that's all in your mind, Phantasmal Killer being the poster-boy. Most old-school D&D illusions were /both/, a visible image that remained, though became 'ghostly' even if you successfully disbelieved, and a mental component that caused you to believe the illusion and take damage from it if you didn't.

Also, the beguiler was a later edition and did not appear in a PH1...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Another question is how could you make the Druid mechanically distinct from the Cleric and the Illusionist mechanically distinct from the Wizard? Clerics and Wizards, for instance, while both having daily spell slots, do not use the same spellcasting mechanics, Wizards being traditionally 'Vancian' and Clerics varying a bit. Clerics, of course, also have different armor/weapon proficiencies and Channel Divinity.

Druids, could be distinguished by their other defining features, like Wildshape and an Animal Companion, perhaps?

 

[pemerton]

I really like the backstory/fluff for illusionists in Castles & Crusades.

<snip>

They can even charm you into shaking off an injury.

<snip>

I do think C&C has a great concept in granting them healing spells with the idea its a psychosomatic effect, but real all the same.

This concept actually comes from 1st edition AD&D. Illusionists had one or two spells that would relieve exhaustion via psychosomatic effect. I can't remember now exactly how they worked, mechanically, but in flavour terms they were just like what you are describing from C&C.

Illusionists definitely weren't enchanters.

That's not entirely true, I don't think. They didn't have Charm, Sleep or Hold (though I guess they could get Charm or Sleep at 14th level with their weird "1st level MU spells" option). But they had their own Paralsysis and Blindness spells, plus Confusion (and Chaos, a superior version of Confusion at 5th level that MUs couldn't learn), plus Hypnotism, Hypnotic Pattern and Suggestion.

 

[Obryn]

That's not entirely true, I don't think. They didn't have Charm, Sleep or Hold (though I guess they could get Charm or Sleep at 14th level with their weird "1st level MU spells" option). But they had their own Paralsysis and Blindness spells, plus Confusion (and Chaos, a superior version of Confusion at 5th level that MUs couldn't learn), plus Hypnotism, Hypnotic Pattern and Suggestion.

Apropos of nothing, if you used Unearthed Arcana, they also had Color Orb.

I mean, it's no enchantment spell. What I'm saying is, illusionists won the spell battle.

-O

 

[Tony Vargas]

Apropos of nothing, if you used Unearthed Arcana, they also had Color Orb.

I mean, it's no enchantment spell. What I'm saying is, illusionists won the spell battle.

-O

That was one broken little spell once your illusionist had enough levels under his belt.

 

[GameDoc]

ON VANCIAN MAGIC:

I hate it. At least, I hate it as the core spell casting mechanic.

Each fantasy setting usually has its own story about the nature of magic and how one comes to wield it. I feel the Vancian system imposes too much narrative on what should be a very generic archetype (the caster of magical spells) for fantasy settings. Players and DMs should be able to make up their own narrative about what magic is in their setting and have an underlying core mechanic that supports it.

That said, I respect that others like Vancian magic and that taking it away from them is me accusing them of having "wrongbadfun." I also know its a D&D tradition that will never go away.

So here is a compromise that came to me. What if this is one of those "dials" in the core rules that each DM or group can determine for themselves (like they have done with healing in the current play test)?

SIMPLE SPELLCASTING: Use the 3E sorcerer mechanic - cast any spell you know as long as you have enough resources (i.e., spell slots) left to cast a spell of that magnitude.

MODERATE: Use the current DDN mechanic for clerics - prepare a limited number of spells, but then use your slots to cast any you have prepared in whatever combination as long as you have slots left.

COMPLEX: Classic Vancian Spellcasting.
​

I like the idea of spell slots as the core resource because it avoids any clunky or confusing shifts in paradigm you'd get from switching back and forth between spell points or mana.

If you wanted to really let each player have the option of setting the bar for his or her own character (and thus allow a simple and a complex caster to exist in the same campaign) you'd have to balance it out with some sort of trade off.

I don't like the idea that there would be two casters of the same class and level knowing a different number of spells per level or having different progressions based on the casting option they use (like was done with the wizard v. sorcerer in 3E).

Would the trade off be that as you got more restrictive, you would get additional slots, or perhaps your spells became more empowered with maybe different ranges, durations, areas of effect, or damage bonuses?

I would think this is best for wizards, clerics, and perhaps druids so you can play your old school classes on the core spellcasting mechanic. Newer additions (warlocks, sorcerers) could still have unique mechanics.



​

​

 

[Tony Vargas]

Each fantasy setting usually has its own story about the nature of magic and how one comes to wield it. I feel the Vancian system imposes too much narrative on what should be a very generic archetype (the caster of magical spells) for fantasy settings. Players and DMs should be able to make up their own narrative about what magic is in their setting and have an underlying core mechanic that supports it.

A good point. It would be nice to have a core casting mechanic that worked for all magic-using classes, and worked for them from one campaign to the next even if the DM varied the particulars on how magic worked. I don't think that's as impossible as it sounds, but it'd have to be more than just a spell-casting mechanic...

Say you divided all class abilities into two buckets: at-will, and limited. You balance them on the assumption that 'limited' means useable roughly once per encounter, and that an 'encounter' is one in which they'll all get used - a very tough, all-in, death-or-glory sort of encounter, not a speed-bump. You then give the DM one of those lovely 'dials,' which adjusts how often all limited powers re-charge. He can crank it up to 'daily' or even 'chapter' or 'story' (basically, when the DM says so), or just tweak it a bit to a so-many-minute rest between encounters or an arbitrary but potentially more than 1/day 'milestone' or whatever. Whatever the setting, hps and limited powers re-charge at that pace, thus setting a basic pace for the campaign. Since everyone has hps, the dial impacts everyone. To keep that dial from disrupting class balance, you'd tone down encounters as you dial up the recharge interval. At 'daily,' you might average 4 moderate encounters rather than one overwhelming one, for instance.

(If you really want to be a stickler for balance, you can give each class the same ratio of at-will to limited. Perhaps, since there are already going to be regular and multi-class version of each class, there could even be a such a 'standardized' version of each class for those who are willing to sacrifice a little mechanical distinctiveness for a hope of class balance).

 

[Lanefan]

Another question is how could you make the Druid mechanically distinct from the Cleric and the Illusionist mechanically distinct from the Wizard?

For casting purposes, in terms of how they cast, I'm not sure you need to make them different from each other at all. Druids and Clerics can work the same without problem, as can MUs and Illusionists (and Necromancers, etc.).

Other things would differentiate them: Druid gets shapeshift and a very different spell list from Cleric; Illusionist (and Necromancer) get very different spells from MU and only go to 7th level spells rather than 9th.

SIMPLE SPELLCASTING: Use the 3E sorcerer mechanic - cast any spell you know as long as you have enough resources (i.e., spell slots) left to cast a spell of that magnitude.

I've flipped all casters* in my current 1e-style game to this system. 4+ years in and the jury's still out on whether it works, the only thing that's clear so far is I think next time I'll have to slightly dial back the number of slots they get.

The upside of it is I get to see spells cast that otherwise would never see the light of day. And it makes designing opponent casters way easier too, I don't have to determine whether they've memorized a given spell that day.

* - Bards are an exception, but they're an exception to everything so this is no different. Their casting mechanics are unique to them alone.

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

For casting purposes, in terms of how they cast, I'm not sure you need to make them different from each other at all.

Nod. 5e does have this thing about making each class mechanically distinct. While I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually abandoned it, maybe having each 'source' be distinct, or simply making sure that casters and non-casters are distinct, since it's their current policy...

Other things would differentiate them: Druid gets shapeshift and a very different spell list from Cleric; Illusionist (and Necromancer) get very different spells from MU and only go to 7th level spells rather than 9th.

Sure, classes can share the same basic mechanics, and be differentiated by different class features and different lists. It had always been enough prior to 4e. But, right now, it's not - each class has that mechanical distinction mandate hanging over it's class-hood. Hopefull that pendulum-swing doesn't mess 5e up too much. Maybe we'll get over it in the course of this extended playtest?