Poll: How do Illusionists compare, then/now?

[rogueattorney]

I never really saw the point for illusionists to be special. Why illusionists and not evocers, transmuters, abjurers, enchanters, necromancers, and so on?

Just because of gnomes? Sorry, I don't really get it. Illusionist is not a class.

There is no need for that special something, you are looking for. That's what the player is for. Every character is unique and should be. It's the background and behaviour, which makes a character unique, not the stats and abilities.

You can have two mechanically exactly equal characters who are drastically different, feel different, play different, have a different impact on the game, just because of the way you utilize their abilities and build them into the story.

The original illusionist was not just a magic-user that used spells from the illusion school. He had an entirely different spell list and entirely different spell progression. The "schools" of magic weren't hard and fast, and many illusionist spells, weren't of the illusion school. The illusionist's spells warped reality and dealt with color, sounds, light and shadow. As the illusionist gained in power, his ability to control reality increrased, until he could "Alter Reality". The spells required a lot more player creativity and DM adjudication of the effects. The point is, that it wasn't a specialist wizard in the 2e scheme of things, but an entirely different class, that played differently than the magic-user.

Gygax (in Dragon #103, 1986) proposed some new classes for his (never published) second edition. Among them was a wizard sub-class that was to be something like a Diviner. That's the way 2e should have gone. By fully fleshing out each of the schools of magic as seperate classes - in my opinion, a much more creative, flavorful, and fun way to go.

But then, that would have been counter to the trend of de-emphisizing classes in favor of skills, which is an entirely different discussion better left to another time and place...

R.A.

 

[Thanee]

The point is, that it wasn't a specialist wizard in the 2e scheme of things, but an entirely different class, that played differently than the magic-user.

Yeah, but why the difference between illusions and any other form of magic?

Isn't any other school of magic special enough to be a seperate class as well?

That's the way 2e should have gone. By fully fleshing out each of the schools of magic as seperate classes - in my opinion, a much more creative, flavorful, and fun way to go.

Of course, that would be cool, if every subschool of magic would be done that way...

I just don't see, why only illusionist should be special and others should not.
With the general way the wizard (magic-user) class works (worked), the illusionist has no point.

If you would apply the same reasoning to all schools of magic, that would be fine, of course.

But then, that would have been counter to the trend of de-emphisizing classes in favor of skills, which is an entirely different discussion better left to another time and place...

Heh. Altho, it's somewhat the point of this thread, or not?

Bye
Thanee

 

[wolfen]

I think the main issue with the illusionist is the DM. In 1e, the DM was basically forced into giving consideration and concern to the illusionist. That made playing an illusionist FUN.

For some reason, DM's now seem to act as though the illusionist is an inconvenience. Why require the DM to think about context and believability when he could simply roll dice for an Evoker?

On top of that, DM's I know seem to love Drow and Undead. 4e should just make all the villains Undead Drow and get it over with.

 

[Kalendraf]

On top of that, DM's I know seem to love Drow and Undead. 4e should just make all the villains Undead Drow and get it over with.

I feel very sorry for you. In the 2 campaigns I'm running, there are few undead and even fewer Drow. In fact, I've yet to use a single drow in my last 3 campaigns combined (though I did use 1 drider, not sure if that really counts). My monthly Greyhawk campaign is mostly fighting giants and humanoids with the odd animal, dragon or magical beast thrown in for variety. My other group, set in a homebrew world began facing waves of humanoids, then faced a lot of human/demi-human foes and recently has been facing scads of aberrations. In both of these campaigns, undead do show up from time to time, but they are certainly not abundant enemies.

 

[Beholder Bob]

The unique spell list of the 1e illusionist was the entire point of the class. It directed the leanings, shaped the threat NPC's represented, made them, in fact, a whole new type of beast. Same thing with a druid and cleric - why the difference? Having different spells available at different levels pushes the PC into a theme - but w/out taking away the ability to play it uniquely for each character. The illusionist with phantasmal force at 1st level encouraged the player to be sneaky, think of good ways to merge illusion into the encounter to get it to work. On the other hand, he lacked the evocation kick, most divination, transmutation, etc spells. You had to be careful to play to your strengths. The Incantrix was a class introduced in dragon magazine (prior to prestige classes ever being conceived) - with a strong abjuration flavor, but not just an abjurer. Not as powerful in direct ‘blast ‘em’ magic, but a good character class that added to the flavor of the classes in general and a campaign’s magic in particular. Other niches of magic were filled by dragon magazine (necromancer, enchanter, etc) - and did the job much better then the bland 2nd/3rd edition specialist. Oh well - not all improvements are for the better. (Did I see Diaglo nodding his head in the background?)

BB

 

[rgard]

How do illusionists compare, then vs. now?

You don't have a option for more powerful now as opposed to the 1E version. That's the one I would pick...more powerful now.

It was a pain to play a 1E Illusionist. You couldn't find a campaign that played the illusionist straight up. Lot's of house rules then with extra saves to 'disbelieve' the illusion.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Thanee]

Just for the record, I would like to have different spell lists (and maybe some specialist rules) for every school of wizardry and the sorcerer, that would be pretty cool, really.

I don't see how the illusionist should take a special place there, tho.

Bye
Thanee

 

[rgard]

The original illusionist was not just a magic-user that used spells from the illusion school. He had an entirely different spell list and entirely different spell progression. The "schools" of magic weren't hard and fast, and many illusionist spells, weren't of the illusion school. The illusionist's spells warped reality and dealt with color, sounds, light and shadow. As the illusionist gained in power, his ability to control reality increrased, until he could "Alter Reality". The spells required a lot more player creativity and DM adjudication of the effects. The point is, that it wasn't a specialist wizard in the 2e scheme of things, but an entirely different class, that played differently than the magic-user.

Gygax (in Dragon #103, 1986) proposed some new classes for his (never published) second edition. Among them was a wizard sub-class that was to be something like a Diviner. That's the way 2e should have gone. By fully fleshing out each of the schools of magic as seperate classes - in my opinion, a much more creative, flavorful, and fun way to go.

But then, that would have been counter to the trend of de-emphisizing classes in favor of skills, which is an entirely different discussion better left to another time and place...

R.A.

Yes, I forgot about 'Alter Reality'. 1E Illusionists got their 7th level spells at 14th level illusionist. It was pretty much treated as a 'Limited Wish.'

It took a MU 1,500,001 XP to cast his/her first Limited Wish and it took an Illusionist 1,320,001 XP to cast his/her first Alter Reality.

That was a slight advantage to the Illusionist.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[rgard]

Just for the record, I would like to have different spell lists (and maybe some specialist rules) for every school of wizardry and the sorcerer, that would be pretty cool, really.

I don't see how the illusionist should take a special place there, tho.

Bye
Thanee

I have some variants in playtest right now that should accomodate that request!

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

IIRC, in 2E the Illusionist was held up as an example of a specialist wizard. Obviously, you can't put every specialist into the PH, so the rest were relegated to the Wizard's Handbook.

I remember the 1E Illusionist fondly. It was FAR cooler than it is today; it was sort of a rebel-wizard - different but cool.

Now it's like, why limit myself by being a specialist?