The Illusionist: Class, Background or Theme?

[Arctic Wolf]

First off this would of been a good poll question but what can ya do . Now down to business. I would say that I am in team theme for Illusionist. It clearly defines how the class, in this case the wizard, sorcerer, warlock, bard, does to fulfill its duties. I could also see how a cleric and some other classes could use it but would require a bit of reworking to get it right but that is another story.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Eh? A conjurer, evoker, or diviner isn't distinct enough, but a necromancer or illusionist is?

Personally, I am against such overspecialization. Just like fighters who only use swords, a mage who only uses illusions has too many situations where their abilities aren't useful. And if you aren't using illusions, why bother with being an illusionist?

Why? You should be able to affect gelatinous cubes with illusions. Illusionary scents rather than illusionary sights admittedly. But nothing wrong with that.

And I'm in favour of the illusionist being a separate class because it should look much more like the 3.X Beguiler than it would the wizard. Spontaneous casting - and a high level illusionist should be Bugs Bunny. Able to create an illusionary door on a wall, walk through that door, then have the enemy run head-first into the wall when they try to follow. As a spontaneous thing. They also need to be artists and conmen (different skill set) - and if you're playing a trickster (as illusionists should be) spontaneous just works better.

I see three basic tiers of illusionist.

1: Illusions only. You can affect any sense (and a small mono-sense illusion such as silent image or ghost sound is a cantrip). Anyone can walk through an illusionary wall at this level. Or fall through an illusion covering a pit trap.

2: Phantasms. A phantasm can convince someone's nervous system that it is real. They feel themselves burning and this will knock them out - or they can't put their hand through a phantasmal wall. Phantasmal monsters are ... frustrating.

3: "Real" Illusions. Your illusions in tier 3 are good enough to fool reality. When you want to. See for instance the door mentioned above or other bugs bunny stunts. Also genuine shapeshifting.

 

[steeldragons]

Should all mages be able to turn invisible, mirror image, blur or conjure phantasmal force/minor images to trick opponents? Sure.

Should all mages be able to use Color Spray, Hypnotic Pattern, create a mental image of fear so terrible it might kill you, be able to weave light and shadow to the point of being semi-real? No. That's the Illusionist's shtick.

But it is still, at its essence, a full arcane caster class. There isn't any (or enough) distinction that, for me, warrants its entire own class.

Theme please.

Generally speaking, to my mind the Illusionist would be helpful/useful for the Exploration and Interaction pillars more than the Combat, as much as if not moreso than a "full/general" mage. But still can help out/defend themselves in combat/in a pinch/as necessary.

Illusionist -Theme (or Advanced Theme, however that's going to work)
-Forgoes the Mage spell list and chooses only from the Illusionist Spell List
-Illusionist cantrips: Detect Illusion, Dancing Lights, Ghost Sound
-Bonus to saves against Illusions and Mind-effecting magics, penalty to target saves against their illusions.
-Associated Bonus Skills: Sleight of Hand, Performer, Disguise.

Illusionist Spell List
level 1.................................level 2..............................level 3
Chromatic Orb...................Blur...................................Blink
Color Spray.......................Detect Invisible..................Clairvoy./aud.
Darkness/Light..................Hypnotic pattern................Illusory Script
Disguise Self......................Invisibility...........................Invisibility Sphere
Silent Image......................Magic Mouth......................Major Image
Sleep.................................Minor Image......................Nondetection
Ventriloquism.....................Mirror Image.....................Phantom Steed
Wall of Fog........................Obscure Object..................Suggestion

I'll leave higher levels to your imaginations. But you see the pattern/get the gist.
--SD

 

[Ferghis]

As others have said, part of the wizard class. Mainly because I want fewer classes. I'm not sure how many others share this inclination.

I generally dislike segregating powers and benefits. I would rather allow as many different characters as possible to be able to use any given power, spell, or ability. In prior editions, I kept stumbling across elements that were restricted to a class or theme or race, and while the restriction was an excellent suggestion, I often couldn't see a real reason why several other characters could not take that particular option.

If it were up to me, each class would basically be an equivalent of 4e's power source. I know bunching up rogues, rangers and fighters into one class would not be D&D, so I'm not pushing for this, but it would be a sensible way to gather options. For example, while tumbling might be something rogues specialize in, I could easily see a swashbuckler (more of a light fighter) or a fencer do the same thing, or even an elven bow-ranger.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

I kinda hope specialization is something that is available to the wizard without a theme. Have all the schools and a Generalist school that they can choose, and they gain benefits when casting spells from their school. Generalist would grant a lesser bonus to all spells or something. They would basically be the Wizard version of Schemes or Domains.

Then have a theme for specialists that want to focus even more.

 

[CleverNickName]

Hmm...sounds like a theme to me. At best.

If the only difference between an illusionist and a wizard is the spells he can cast, we gain nothing (except another half-dozen pages of bloat in the PHB) by making a separate class out of it. Do we need a Pikeman class, for fighters who specialize in fighting with polearms?

 

[drothgery]

Class, though probably not a first player's book class. And I'm thinking something along the lines of the 3.5 Beguiller here (though with more effective spells), not just a wizard with a different spell list.

 

[grimslade]

Truthfully, I didn't think there was much discussion about the Illusionist. In every class discussion thread, it is taken as a given that the Illusionist will not be a class without much uproar or protest. I am pleased to see there is support for the illusionist as class. I didn't include a poll because I honestly did not think there would be a lot of variety of opinion. Mea culpa.

I would love to see a differentiated Illusionist. Not a scholarly wizard with a PhD in Gnomish Glamer and a minor in Illusiory Ethics, but the D&D version of a street magician, a skill monkey con mage. Blend enchantment spells and illusion spells to a spontaneous caster frame, maybe some faerie Glamer tricks. It winds up being a great deal different than its inspiration though.

 

[Deadboy]

I also agree that the Illusionist should be part of the Wizard class, much like schemes for the Rogue.

If it has its own class, then you equally need a Necromancer class, which is fine and supports its own class, but then you also need an Abjurer, Conjurer, etc., etc. Most of the ones that aren't Illusionist and Conjurer aren't strong enough to warrant their own class. Also, this sections off a big portion of what could be the Wizard's mechanics into other classes. As class features, this adds more customization choices to the Wizard. The Mage in 4e handled schools well (it was the only subclass that Essentials added that I really liked).

 

[The Shadow]

My first instinct is to say it needs its own class, simply because the 1e Illusionist was so awesome. But...

If a theme could do two things that need doing, I could see it as a theme, or as a wizard 'scheme', perhaps:

1) Give access to a set of Illusionist spells that generalists don't get, while blocking off certain other spells, and:

2) Perhaps alter the Illusionist's other spells. So for example, an Illusionist can take Fireball... but in his hands it's really a Shadow Evocation, so that people get to save vs. Illusion to take less damage.

EDIT: To develop this a bit more, perhaps a regular Fireball allows a Dex save for half damage, but an Illusionist's Fireball allows a Wis or Int save for one-quarter damage or something.

The more I think about this, the more I think I like a wizard equivalent of "schemes" for this.

Let's not have an artificial completionism in schemes, though. Include only the ones that are truly iconic. The Illusionist (which includes a large chunk of Enchantment, too), the Necromancer, and the Summoner all qualify. Probably also a Thaumaturge (Transmutation and a bit of Evocation), unless that's the generalist shtick. But the Abjurer? Not so much.

 

[Leatherhead]

I thought Chromatic Orb was an Evocation?

Like one of the few that was actually worth having.

 

[Hussar]

For an illusionist to be a class, it's going to have to be fundamentally different from a wizard. IOW, it has to be as different from a wizard as a wizard is from, say, a cleric or druid. (or ranger or thief for that matter)

Which means that a "Class" illusionist won't look very much like any edition's illusionist. Even in AD&D, the only difference between an illusionist and an MU was the spell list. And those have been folded together for a long time, and even back then there was considerable overlap between the lists.

If that's the only difference, then Theme is the best way to go. OTOH, if we want Illusionist to be a class, we're going to have to make some serious changes. New armor and whatnot. Maybe a different casting system - something like the Shadowcaster from the 3e Tome of Magic. That would certainly make it a new class. ((Honestly, I would like to see that as the means for creating specialist caster classes.))

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think that the pertinent question about whether something could be a theme or background is this - does it make sense for any class to have that as a background or theme? If it doesn't , then it shouldn't be a background or theme.

For me, a commoner illusionist rogue, or an illusionist guardian fighter don't seem to make sense, so I'd go for class.


Cheers

 

[Doug McCrae]

For me, a commoner illusionist rogue, or an illusionist guardian fighter don't seem to make sense, so I'd go for class.

Both make sense to me, the first a bit more so. Gnomes could be fighter/illusionists or illusionist/thieves in 1e, so there's some precedence for it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Let's not have an artificial completionism in schemes, though. Include only the ones that are truly iconic. The Illusionist (which includes a large chunk of Enchantment, too), the Necromancer, and the Summoner all qualify. Probably also a Thaumaturge (Transmutation and a bit of Evocation), unless that's the generalist shtick. But the Abjurer? Not so much.

Maybe the abjurer needs better marketing. Call him a white witch. Also, illusionists/beguilers are probably better named as enchanters.

Necromancer, diabolist, shaman, and oracle all seem like strong concepts to me. Though there's a big question as to whether we determine a scheme/class on the basis of what it can do, or where its power comes from. Or both. Also D&D magic has not traditionally revolved around dealing with various types of disembodied entities, such as the dead, demons, or spirits.

 

[Hussar]

I think that the pertinent question about whether something could be a theme or background is this - does it make sense for any class to have that as a background or theme? If it doesn't , then it shouldn't be a background or theme.

For me, a commoner illusionist rogue, or an illusionist guardian fighter don't seem to make sense, so I'd go for class.


Cheers

Illusionist Guardian Fighter, maybe not. But, Illusionist Commoner Bard certainly does. And I'm not too much against an illusionist rogue - that's what a shadowdancer is isn't it?

And, I could see various priests (Priest of Mask from FR forex) having an Illusionist theme.

 

[The Shadow]

Maybe the abjurer needs better marketing. Call him a white witch.

He'll need a much more interesting spell list to pull that off.

Just how sacred a cow are Gygax's spell schools? Honestly, they don't seem all that well thought out.

Also, illusionists/beguilers are probably better named as enchanters.

I could get on board with that, especially if they went all Arthurian with the fluff. But Illusionist is the term with D&D tradition behind it.

Necromancer, diabolist, shaman, and oracle all seem like strong concepts to me. Though there's a big question as to whether we determine a scheme/class on the basis of what it can do, or where its power comes from. Or both. Also D&D magic has not traditionally revolved around dealing with various types of disembodied entities, such as the dead, demons, or spirits.

I think they've already said they want Necromancer to be a theme, so that both wizards and clerics can take it.

Diabolist is basically a variant of Summoner.

Shaman feels more druidy to me.

Oracle... Maybe. I do think there's a niche for a Diviner specialist, though I don't know how many players will be interested.

 

[Authweight]

I would rather see it as its own class. For one thing, I think that it should have non-vancian resource management. An illusionist seems best suited to having many weaker spells that can confuse, disrupt, and cause all sorts of mischief. That simply doesn't sit right in a vancian system, where spells are major important resources to be used with care. If the illusionist was merely a wizard specialization, then his illusion spells would have to be on the same power level as normal wizard spells, and that seems too strong for most illusion spells. An illusionist should, in my opinion, have a good list of at-will spells that expand as he levels, giving him great versatility. On top of this he should have either encounter abilities or daily abilities. If he has dailies, they should be like the 3e sorcerer. Encounter powers would best be managed as spell points.

Actually, if I were to design it, I would give the illusionist spell slots. Half the spell slots would be encounter, and half would be daily, but they would tap the same pool of spells. So if an illusionist had 6 spell slots, then the first 3 spells he casts in an encounter would recharge after the encounter. The slots he expends after this would come out of his daily pool. He would have a daily resource that would let him push himself, but each encounter he would always have about half of his potential ready to go no matter what.

That's just one way to do it though, and probably not a very good way. The point is, I want an illusionist to be activating and maintaining many illusions every single encounter, and that doesn't sit well with the wizards vancian mechanics.

 

[jadrax]

f the illusionist was merely a wizard specialization, then his illusion spells would have to be on the same power level as normal wizard spells, and that seems too strong for most illusion spells.

As far as I can see, if it becomes a theme any spell-caster with possible Illusion Spells would be able to take it, so you could have sorcerer illusionists, warlock illusionists and even cleric illusionists.

 

[Authweight]

As far as I can see, if it becomes a theme any spell-caster with possible Illusion Spells would be able to take it, so you could have sorcerer illusionists, warlock illusionists and even cleric illusionists.

We know, however, that your spell list and basic resource management come from class not theme. If illusionists are to have a different spell list made for a different resource management system, it needs its own class.