Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Shadow" data-source="post: 6015635" data-attributes="member: 16760">I really like a lot of ideas from the OP.&nbsp; However, I'm going to dwell on a topic nobody else yet has.As is my wont, I am going to stick up for the Illusionist, a class I always enjoyed.&nbsp; (And no, not just because I like gnomes - I played a human illusionist too.)What is central to the Illusionist class?&nbsp; Magic used in the sneakiest possible way.&nbsp; Illusionists are subtle - they pretty much have to be.&nbsp; Their magic is more narrow than that of wizards, but within their bailiwick they reign supreme - they are capable of spells no mere wizard can pull off.Despite the name, they are also really good at various enchantments.&nbsp; Spells tapping into the Plane of Shadow are unique to them, as are 'quasi-real' illusions.Traditionally, the Illusionist class depends on Dexterity much more than wizards do - and thus they multiclass beautifully with Thief.Now for mechanics.&nbsp; First, it is absolutely essential that their signature spells be removed from the wizard list entirely:&nbsp; Phantasmal Killer, Shadow Door, and so forth.&nbsp; Likewise, the vast majority of wizard spells are not available to the Illusionist - they have their own, distinct, highly-flavorful list.I am inclined to remove Shadow Evocation and simply say that Illlusionists can learn their own, Shadow-evoked, versions of spells like Fireball.I am a bit torn about their spell-casting mechanic.&nbsp; Pure Vancian would, of course, be traditional;&nbsp; but in Next all classes should have a distinct mechanic.&nbsp; On the other hand, it is important for Illusionists to be able to pass themselves off as wizards;&nbsp; half their impact is removed if people know what to expect.I'm considering that perhaps their spellcasting should require Dex checks of some sort, to reflect the intricate gestures they must use.&nbsp; The check might help set the DC of rolls to penetrate their illusions;&nbsp; on really good rolls, they might be able to retain the spell even after casting it.&nbsp; (Somewhat similar to the encounter-type spells suggested for traditions.)Any thoughts?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Shadow, post: 6015635, member: 16760"] I really like a lot of ideas from the OP. However, I'm going to dwell on a topic nobody else yet has. As is my wont, I am going to stick up for the Illusionist, a class I always enjoyed. (And no, not just because I like gnomes - I played a human illusionist too.) What is central to the Illusionist class? Magic used in the sneakiest possible way. Illusionists are subtle - they pretty much have to be. Their magic is more narrow than that of wizards, but within their bailiwick they reign supreme - they are capable of spells no mere wizard can pull off. Despite the name, they are also really good at various enchantments. Spells tapping into the Plane of Shadow are unique to them, as are 'quasi-real' illusions. Traditionally, the Illusionist class depends on Dexterity much more than wizards do - and thus they multiclass beautifully with Thief. Now for mechanics. First, it is absolutely essential that their signature spells be removed from the wizard list entirely: Phantasmal Killer, Shadow Door, and so forth. Likewise, the vast majority of wizard spells are not available to the Illusionist - they have their own, distinct, highly-flavorful list. I am inclined to remove Shadow Evocation and simply say that Illlusionists can learn their own, Shadow-evoked, versions of spells like Fireball. I am a bit torn about their spell-casting mechanic. Pure Vancian would, of course, be traditional; but in Next all classes should have a distinct mechanic. On the other hand, it is important for Illusionists to be able to pass themselves off as wizards; half their impact is removed if people know what to expect. I'm considering that perhaps their spellcasting should require Dex checks of some sort, to reflect the intricate gestures they must use. The check might help set the DC of rolls to penetrate their illusions; on really good rolls, they might be able to retain the spell even after casting it. (Somewhat similar to the encounter-type spells suggested for traditions.) Any thoughts? [/QUOTE]

Verification