Illusionist and the shadow power source

[Errantocracy]

I never really believed that the illusionist SHOULD have been a shadow controller, although in the face of considerable belief to the contrary I held my tongue. However, I think Wizards has done the right thing; illusions were too closely associated with the wizard class to separate the two, and having an actual illusionist class would make said class vulnerable to creature's that were immune to illusionists.

My primary reason for believing that illusionist should not be a shadow controller was that necromancer better fit this bill. A previous poster mentioned necromancer as leader but I can see no justification for this. A necromancer traditionally has weak armor, weak physical attacks (in line with a wizard, rather than a cleric) no ability to heal (if anything, they are the antithesis of healing, and though they can drain life, they can't pass it on) and no perceivable tactical skills. By contrast, they can summon (apparently a controller ability, see wizard and invoker) and could perceivably to slash damage (poison and diseases?). By any means, necromancer should be a controller.

Which begs the question, why have illusionist as another shadow controller? Especially with shadow referring to the plane, rather than actual shadows (and hence and undead flavour)?

 

[fanboy2000]

Most MMORPGs that planned to offer a plethora of additional classes with each new expansion have ended up scaling back their plans, because they were unable to identify any more niches that new classes could actually fill. We haven't received even the tiniest hint that this could happen with 4e, but it is certainly possible that down the road we could see fewer than 8 classes per PH, and perhaps the absorption of illusionist into the wizard class is a first sign that MMORPG-style class design problems are hitting WotC.

The many, many, base classes and PrCs in 3.x suggest to me that WotC will never run out of ideas for new classes. I'm willing to bet if I cornered a WotC designer, he or she could come-up with a 100 new ideas for classes, and another 100 if they were drunk. And that's just one of them.

 

[TerraDave]

I'm not sure we were ever explicitly promised an "Illusionist" class. The designers said they liked illusions and illusionists and had hopes for maybe making a dedicated illusionist in the future, and illusions are associated with the shadow power source, but I think its been mostly forum-fervor that's translated this into a conviction that there will be a class named "Illusionist" in the shadow power source.

The same thing seems to have happened for the Necromancer.

First, as I note in the opening, I like this wizard illusionanist

But, I think the links suggested between shadow and illusionist and necromancers were a little stronger...as always, I would have to check the sources.

And, just from your post, if you have an illusionist, and illusions come from the shadow power source, then wouldn't the illusionist have to use the shadow power source?

 

[TerraDave]

If the PHB III did have, say, chi and shadow as power sources....


...then you know what will be in there.




Can't guess?:

Spoiler

NINJA

 

[Cadfan]

I never really believed that the illusionist SHOULD have been a shadow controller, although in the face of considerable belief to the contrary I held my tongue. However, I think Wizards has done the right thing; illusions were too closely associated with the wizard class to separate the two, and having an actual illusionist class would make said class vulnerable to creature's that were immune to illusionists.

My primary reason for believing that illusionist should not be a shadow controller was that necromancer better fit this bill. A previous poster mentioned necromancer as leader but I can see no justification for this. A necromancer traditionally has weak armor, weak physical attacks (in line with a wizard, rather than a cleric) no ability to heal (if anything, they are the antithesis of healing, and though they can drain life, they can't pass it on) and no perceivable tactical skills. By contrast, they can summon (apparently a controller ability, see wizard and invoker) and could perceivably to slash damage (poison and diseases?). By any means, necromancer should be a controller.

Which begs the question, why have illusionist as another shadow controller? Especially with shadow referring to the plane, rather than actual shadows (and hence and undead flavour)?

If you're going to speculate on the shadow power source, there seem to be two popular ways to do it.

The first, mostly popular technique is to begin with a presumption that things will start with a necromancy and illusion, and try to derive from there with some analysis about filling out roles.

The second, less popular, but in my opinion wiser, option is this: start with late 3e era Shadow powered classes, and assume that they will be given a larger piece of the pie in 4e than they had in 3e. This means that the Shadow power source will probably be most influenced by the Shadowcaster and related prestige classes, the Shadow Hand discipline, and the Shadow Dancer.

 

[Jhaelen]

I think the illusionist classes from previous editions could be used to represented a whole range of different character concepts. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't choose a subset of classic illusionist spells and turn it into a class with the shadow power source.

The 4E classes are more focused than those in previous editions. As an example look at what they did with the druid, shaman and warden.

 

[jsaving]

The many, many, base classes and PrCs in 3.x suggest to me that WotC will never run out of ideas for new classes. I'm willing to bet if I cornered a WotC designer, he or she could come-up with a 100 new ideas for classes, and another 100 if they were drunk. And that's just one of them.

Completely not the point. The designers have said they're self-consciously setting a much higher standard for 4e, adding a class to the game only if it fills its role well AND occupies a needed niche that was previously empty.

Having ideas is easy, having good ideas is much harder -- as the numerous broken or just plain lousy 3.x base classes and PrCs can attest.

 

[fanboy2000]

Completely not the point. The designers have said they're self-consciously setting a much higher standard for 4e, adding a class to the game only if it fills its role well AND occupies a needed niche that was previously empty.

Look, I love 4e. I love 3.5. But if there is one thing I know about humans it is how easy it is to justify lower standards a few years into a project. Sure, its easy to say "we're going to have higher standards from now on." They probably even believe it. But trust me, when they're working on PHB 5, a lot more classes will meet those 'higher standards.'

Having ideas is easy, having good ideas is much harder -- as the numerous broken or just plain lousy 3.x base classes and PrCs can attest.

But bad ideas don't seem that bad after a few PHBs have been published. It's like beer goggles.

 

[jsaving]

But bad ideas don't seem that bad after a few PHBs have been published. It's like beer goggles.

OK, now you are scaring me...

But your point is well taken. If they jettison their higher standards for sales, then we could see a PH100 or even a PH1000...