Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9886062" data-attributes="member: 4937">Probably not; see my next answer.At this point, no.  While I never did play 2e per se, when revising 1e it's always going to be worth asking whether the official 2e revision made sense, and even back in the day we often agreed that they did and adopted them where we liked them.  I think before I'd revise the Illusionist, I'd write in some sort of port of 2e's specialty wizards into the game and then let you play Illusionist or Necromancer out of the box without needing a separate class.How good the class is depends entirely on what processes the DM puts in place to adjudicate saves vs. illusions.  And really, this is very much true of illusion magic from the M-U as well, since the most consequential sort of illusions are already on the M-U list.I think there is a nice happy medium where illusion magic is very useful but not the "die no save" win button that it was at some tables, and if I was really going to rewrite the whole rules of 1e AD&D it would be on the list to formalize that happy medium into the official rules.  That would be vastly more useful than me studying the Illusionist and trying to make it interesting.The biggest problem with illusionist though is that so many things are just immune to illusions, and that remains true even in 3e.  It's the main reason you don't play as a PC Enchanter or Necromancer, and instead focus on Abjuration, Divination, or Transmutation.  You don't really want to be in a situation where you are super-situational because the monsters you are facing are immune to your schtick.  An NPC enchanter or necromancer or illusionist doesn't have that problem, because he's facing the PCs.</blockquote>

Verification