Is the Illusionist Dead?

[Gray Mouser]

They have that nice high pitch without all the messy and painful snipping.

Heh.

BTW, long time no see Fafhrd

Gray Mouser

 

[iwatt]

Illusionists suffer from one thing, lucky saves means nuttin! an Evoker or something generally means 1/2 damage on a save. Which may mean nothing to a roleplay heavy smart group in a city... but the Diablo like focus many groups I see have, means illusion isn't as tactical.

But evoking is boring.

And a cleaving barbarian can deal about the same damage that a fireball does.

 

[Estlor]

Actually, since a stereotypical D&D Gnome began as being able to be an Illusionist and not a Bard I'd have to disagree with you.

Much like the halfling, 3e changed the way gnomes are viewed by default. Races of Stone further extends this retconning of gnomes away from the trickster tinkerer to the artisan, crafstman, and musician that just happens to have a flair for illusions.

Gnome v 3.5 makes perfect sense as a bard. Gnome v 1.0 (and v 2.0 to an extent) does not.

Edit: Me have ungood grammar!

 

[ForceUser]

'Castles and Crusades' has rehabilitated the illusionist as a distinct class.

If I were still running a 3E campaign, I would have kept the illusionist as the gnome's favoured class. Giving the gnome 'bard' makes about as much sense as giving the half-orc 'paladin'.

You know, this statement annoys me to no end. What's wrong with half-orc paladins? Dwarven wizards? Elven barbarians? Gnome bards?

One of the tropes I absolutely hated about previous versions of D&D--and never paid attention to anyway--was race/class limitations. Sure, dwarves might naturally gravitate towards the professions of cleric, fighter and rogue, but it's that rare dwarven sorcerer than stands out as a unique individual. To unilaterally rule that no dwarf can ever be anything but a cleric, fighter or rogue is patently absurd and clearly artifical, and as such, is a big steaming pile of syphilitic elephant poo!

3E is all about breaking boundaries and deconstructing the most annoying sacred cows from previous editions of the game. There is nothing wrong with allowing paladin as the half-orc's favored class--so long as the designer has a clear story goal in mind, relevant to his campaign setting, when he makes that decision. Similarly, bard makes perfect sense for the gnome when compared agains the other core classes--the fact that bards are charismatic doesn't have any bearing on whether they are tricksters or not. If you look at the bard's spell list, they are designed to bear the burden of "trickster" quite nicely, loaded with enchantments and illusions as they are. Not to mention, some of the most charming scoundrels from books and film are top-notch tricksters as well.

I grant you that illusionist is a fine choice for a gnome, but no more so than bard. Let's shake off the shackles of mental limitations from previous versions of the game, and instead find inspiration in the wide range of possibilities that 3E breathes life into.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Fantasy Flight Games, School of Illusion, was a fantastic book that expanded the illusionists abilities greatly

 

[Kae'Yoss]

You think the illusionist is dead? He wasn't even there. You fell for his illusion

No, I don't think the illusionist is dead. He just doesn't write Illusionist on his character sheet any more. Many don't like to specialize in anything, so you have a lot of wizards or sorcerers that use illusion spells.

And they might be negated by saves, but you have to earn that save first. You don't get a save unless you interact. The old line "I disbelief" doesn't work. You have to actually interact with it (and talking to a potentially illusionary house doesn't count as interacting). So with a little cunning, you can make them wander past the illusion time and again without them realizing that there is one. Their nice save bonuses won't help if they're not allowed to utilize them.

About gnome bards: The thinking was probably on the lines of: "Those poor gnomes have only a subclass as favoured class. That's too restricting. But wizard is already taken by another, we need more diversity in the core rules. Hm... look, we have another core class that's good with illusions, let's take that.

About elf wizards: Here, the thinking was something like this: "They may be a chaotic race, but due to their longevity, they do like history and knowledge in general, so reading books is something they might do (especially since they're usually not stupid). Besides, they don't mind spending a couple of decades learning magic - they don't mind spending a couple of decades learning other stuff, either. So wizard suits them fine.

 

[Driddle]

re "Is the Illusionist Dead?": Yes. Yes, he is. I killed him myself and danced on his corpse.

Bad, illusionist, bad!

Yay me!

 

[Akrasia]

You know, this statement annoys me to no end. What's wrong with half-orc paladins? Dwarven wizards? Elven barbarians? Gnome bards?

Nothing is wrong with them.

However, those classes are not appropriate as the 'favoured classes' for those races, given default D&D assumptions about the cultures and natural abilities of those races.

One of the tropes I absolutely hated about previous versions of D&D--and never paid attention to anyway--was race/class limitations. Sure, dwarves might naturally gravitate towards the professions of cleric, fighter and rogue, but it's that rare dwarven sorcerer than stands out as a unique individual. To unilaterally rule that no dwarf can ever be anything but a cleric, fighter or rogue is patently absurd and clearly artifical, and as such, is a big steaming pile of syphilitic elephant poo!

You clearly do not understand the idea of a 'favoured class'.

There is nothing preventing a character from choosing a class other than his/her favoured class.

The purpose of a 'favoured class' is to reflect the particular abilities and strengths of the race in question.

3E is all about breaking boundaries and deconstructing the most annoying sacred cows from previous editions of the game.

Oh, so that is why it kept most of the 'sacred cows' in question? Please, get a grip. :\

Let's shake off the shackles of mental limitations from previous versions of the game, and instead find inspiration in the wide range of possibilities that 3E breathes life into.

Ummm, you do realize that 3E is not a religion, right? :\

 

[Virel]

In 1st ed AD&D we had a fair number of Illusionist and it was my favorite class. When UA came out the balance tipped more in favor the magic-user. When 2nd ed came out with that combined spell list for magic-user/wizards, it was the death of the Illusionist class. The Illusionist was just another subclass with the same spells a typical wizard would cast. Many of the best Illusionist spells which were the heart of the class were eliminated or watered down. In my campaign, Illusionist are still around and players will still play them a little. Out of 28 active characters, in three different adventure groups, spread among ten players, we have two Illusionist. Keeping the 1st ed spell list as written in 1st ed for the Illusionist was the key. Several spells are very powerful etc but the trade offs are balanced. However, even in 1st ed AD&D the Illusionist was often at mercy of the DM on how the DM would interpet spell effects etc. My group had the EGG view that Illusions can cause damage etc and the Illusionist was quiet effect, in fact the very high level ones were the crunch masters with spells like Chaos (only fighters and illusionist are allowed saves), Cromatic Orb, Weird etc with the Magic User being the most flexiable.

As for 3e, I think it has better balance on the specialist than 2e because you can pick your opposition schools. This could allow an Illusionist to throw a real fireball on occassion to mix it up.

When my co-DM runs adventures, I'm playing a 1st level Illusionist and we are using the 1st ed Illusionist spell list as writtenin the PHB & UA.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Ummm, you do realize that 3E is not a religion, right? :\

Blasphemy!