The Illusionist: Class, Background or Theme?
Oni
First Post
There isn't really any reason that you couldn't have specialization, or a class, and a theme in addition to that, then through the right choice of themes and class you could have an illusionist that's all in, one that's deversified a bit, or another spellcaster like a cleric or warlovk that has chosen illusions as part of their focus.
Li Shenron
Legend
My preference is none of the three, but if I have to choose I'd go with theme.
As a separate class I don't like it because it's either too similar to the wizard, or it might require to remove/reduce illusion capabilities from the main wizard to justify its existence and make it different enough. But normally I would like the wizard to efficiently cover illusion too, so that you can freely decide how much your wizard wants to lean toward that school of magic. I don't like multiclassing as a solution, because there is always some klunkiness in it.
As a background it doesn't even make sense. Mechanically, backgrounds are skill bonuses + a special ability that's supposed to work during downtime. You'd have to come up with forced ideas to justify it being a background at any cost.
As a theme, you may come up with a wizard-only theme based on feats which enhance your illusion spells, and this is OK. Since 5e is concerned with trying to avoid number inflation, these feats would presumably make your illusions more flexible or robust rather than bump the DC. But it won't be a theme for everyone, unless it grants additional illusion-only spells.
Overall, I think an Illusionist is all about illusion spells, so everything you need is in the Wizard class as you already are an illusionist if you know a lot of illusion spells. But it would be nice to be able to specialize even more through feats (still I'm not fully convinced by one Illusionist theme, I'd probably go with a free selection of feats), although I think other wizard specialization have more room for this (e.g. necromancer and diviner).
As a separate class I don't like it because it's either too similar to the wizard, or it might require to remove/reduce illusion capabilities from the main wizard to justify its existence and make it different enough. But normally I would like the wizard to efficiently cover illusion too, so that you can freely decide how much your wizard wants to lean toward that school of magic. I don't like multiclassing as a solution, because there is always some klunkiness in it.
As a background it doesn't even make sense. Mechanically, backgrounds are skill bonuses + a special ability that's supposed to work during downtime. You'd have to come up with forced ideas to justify it being a background at any cost.
As a theme, you may come up with a wizard-only theme based on feats which enhance your illusion spells, and this is OK. Since 5e is concerned with trying to avoid number inflation, these feats would presumably make your illusions more flexible or robust rather than bump the DC. But it won't be a theme for everyone, unless it grants additional illusion-only spells.
Overall, I think an Illusionist is all about illusion spells, so everything you need is in the Wizard class as you already are an illusionist if you know a lot of illusion spells. But it would be nice to be able to specialize even more through feats (still I'm not fully convinced by one Illusionist theme, I'd probably go with a free selection of feats), although I think other wizard specialization have more room for this (e.g. necromancer and diviner).
Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
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?
As long as the Illusionist gets unique spells that aren't available to other types of Wizard then I'm fine with it being either a theme or a class. Include some of the Enchanter's spells while you're at it, to create a caster specialised in affecting minds. It looks like this might be the way the Cleric is going, and I see no reason not to do the same with arcane casters.
By my own rules of inclusiveness it should be a class.
That said, I am not sure how people actually want to play an Illusionist would would not be happy with a Wizard, Sorcerer or Warlock with an Illusionist Theme.
Background is right out.
But theme or class I think could go either way.
That said, I am not sure how people actually want to play an Illusionist would would not be happy with a Wizard, Sorcerer or Warlock with an Illusionist Theme.
Background is right out.
But theme or class I think could go either way.
Doug McCrae
Legend
Doesn't the 3e rogue's sneak attack suffer from the same problem? It happens to be not useful in much the same situations as illusions too - fighting mindless undead, constructs, plants, and the like.
I'm actually very much in favour of more specialised casters. I feel that the 1e to 3e caster spell lists were much too long. There shouldn't be a few classes that can solve any problem. They're too powerful and lacking in flavour. Or, if there are, their resources should be a great deal more limited than those of the specialist.
Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
Yes.
Aenghus
Explorer
Personally, I would prefer specialist classes and limiting the max spell levels of the generalist mage, forcing a choice between specialisation and versatility.
This would of necessity involve allowing specialists to be competent and useful all the time i.e. removing widespread immunities that more or less arbitrarily marginalise some classes/ schools of magic while leaving others intact.
Unfortunately, I know this isn't going to happen.
This would of necessity involve allowing specialists to be competent and useful all the time i.e. removing widespread immunities that more or less arbitrarily marginalise some classes/ schools of magic while leaving others intact.
Unfortunately, I know this isn't going to happen.
