The poor illusionist...

[Mouseferatu]

Considering that we are talking about an illusionist... I'd say that if your enemy is in the condition of making a Spellcraft check, you have done something wrong already. An illusionist should never be where you think he is, and if he is he should never look like what he is. Be invisible, be in concealment, be somewhere else. And never assume that you can live on illusions only; there are other schools for you, too.

I agree, in the best of all possible worlds, the illusionist should work from the shadows. But that simply isn't always an option, especially for PC illusionists. My point, though, was that it shouldn't be the only way to make illusionists work; right now, they're the only specialist wizard whose primary abilities can be nullified simply by someone watching them.

But then, I miss the days when the prismatic spells were only available to illusionists, so maybe part of it is that I just woke up on the wrong side of the nostalgia today.

 

[ThoughtfulOwl]

Spellcraft checks aren't that big a problem, as there is a number of ways to hide what you are doing. Cover, concealment, interposed objects, bad illumination, being invisible or hidden and still spell will mask the somatic component; loud background noises, thick walls and silent spell mask the verbal one; casting from a wand or staff, being too far away to be clearly heard and seen or just casting the spell beforehand will mask both.

As for the other issues, an illusionist is basically a (magic-aided) deceiver and should behave accordingly; in the end, he is just lying to others, deceiving them or manipulating them through false information: only, he is doing it with spells in addition or instead of more conventional means. Sometimes a plain lie won't stand up to scrutiny and he is forced to be subtler.

For example, let's say that I'm seen casting a major image; however, instead of having something popping suddenly into existence I avoid to break continuity with the existing scene and make the illusionary element depart subtly from reality. From the point of view of my foes recognizing the spell is of little value; they may know what I cast, but they have no clue about what is still real and what isn't anymore. In fact, I can even capitalize on their suspicions by making an illusion that they will take for granted, while trying to disbelieve something suspect yet absolutely real.

There also ways around the other problems. Arcane sight and true seeing are both limited to a 120' radius; sometimes an illusion doesn't need to be close to be effective: an illusionary great wyrm soaring high in the sky or an approaching illusionary army can dissuade a foe long before coming that close. Arcane sight + spellcraft check may tell you that there is an illusion spell on the death knight charging toward you with a greatsword, but you don't know what the illusion is doing; what is false? His armor? His nature? His position? His very existence? True seeing poses a bigger trouble, yet a simple solution is to stick to non-visual illusions.

Assuming that not all the foes have these means, a brutally effective tactic is either to put them out of business first or to divide them from their peers and then concentrating on the latter. Another possibility is to use illusionary istantaneous effects (like using shadow evocation to cast a fake fireball): foes with true seeing will see it for what it is, but at least they get no time to warn their allies.

Keep also in mind that several illusions (including many patterns and phantasms) don't allow to disbelieve to begin with.

In the end the job of an illusionist is to be deceitful, like casting an illusion as a frame around something real, then watching the enemies as they assume that the whole thing is either all real or all fake. The trick is to keep one's foes outsmarted.

Remember: the deceiver and the liar always have a starting advantage: they choose where to put their lies, while their victims have to suspect and double-check everything.

 

[Keldryn]

But then, I miss the days when the prismatic spells were only available to illusionists, so maybe part of it is that I just woke up on the wrong side of the nostalgia today.

I wholeheartedly agree. I liked it when Illusionists were a very distinct class, rather than just another Wizard who gets to cast an extra Illusion spell of each level, and gets slightly-more effective illusions. I really like the idea of "specialist" wizards getting access to spells that generalists do not.

 

[Rl'Halsinor]

I second Keldryn's position. One of the very best PCs I have ever seen played was my brother's old 1E Gnome Thief/Illusionist. The combination of thief skills with those specialized spells produced a very potent character.

 

[BASHMAN]

My Houserule for Illusions

here is my houserule for dealing with illusions:

If you say you disbelieve, it uses your action, you get a bonus to save vs. will (if it is an illusion). But if you disbelieve, and it is not an illusion, it uses your action, and you get NO SAVE against whatever it was.

Makes people a lot less likely to attempt disbelief.

Also, for Spellcraft, think, DMs, Think! There are certain rolls that the Players should not get to roll-- like hear noise. They should not know what their dice roll was when you tell them what they hear-- otherwise they just won't believe you if they know they rolled low. Same with Spellcraft. You should roll it-- don't let them see it. Just ask, What is your spellcraft bonus? after rolling the dice. If it is an illusion, unless they roll a natural 20, tell them it is a spell that is similar to the illusion. So if the person casts an illusion of a dragon to attack the PCs, tell the person that they cast one of the "summon monster" spells-- don't say it is an illusion.

 

[Byrons_Ghost]

I was going to post in the other illusion thread, but this one fits a bit better...

I never really had a chance to play a 1st ed Illusionist, though I know they were fairly different. I do think that an illusionist has gotten a boost between 2nd and 3rd editions, based mostly on their denied schools:

In 2nd ed, the illusionist was forced to lookse Abjuration, Evocation, and Necromancy. There were the only specialist that lost three schools, and got the least in return. Also, as someone pointed out in the other thread, there was a ton of stuff in 2e that was immune to illusions. During the campaign I played in, none of my illusions would work on any undead, outsiders, or just about anyone with infravision (unless I used the higher-level spells that could do thermal components). It may have been house rules of my DM, I don't know. At least he didn't do automatic disbelief saves.

In 3rd ed, illusionists only loose 2 schools, and they can pick which ones. Also, there's the universal school (taken from the Options books, I think), which I'm quite thankful for. Under 2nd ed, being barred from abjuration meant I lost things like "dispel magic", which I consider a pretty standard spell for any mage. I often complained that my 15th-level illusionist could frighten people to death with a gesture, but couldn't dispel a "hot foot" cantrip cast on him by a peasant apprentice.

So I guess, really, between the editions the illusionist was brought in line with the other specialists. Now, as for 3.0 vs. 3.5, I haven't looked to closely yet. I always had a house rule that disbelief wasn't automatic, and took a standard action, so no news there. As for the invisibility spells, well, it does sort of take the deception/stealth aspect out of them. I can only assume they were toned down for the "scry and fry" crowd that likes to use heavy magical ambushes- it seems like a lot of 3.5 changes were made in response to these tactics. The durations would be a small thing to house rule, and it would require less changes than I wanted to make in 3.0

The Spellcraft thing is interesting, as I hadn't thought of it and it never came up in our games, even with a PC illusionist for a couple of years. An idea I had while reading it was to give each specialty school a unique skill, possibly in lieu of Decipher Script if the DM is so inclined. Illusionists would get Bluff as a skill, and could use it to disguise what they're casting- they mutter the words and make subtle and misleading gestures.

Since we're already venturing into House Rule territory, here's a possible list of skills:

Abjurer: Use Magic Device
Conjurer: Diplomacy
Diviner: Sense Motive
Enchanter: Gather Information
Evoker: Intimidate
Illusionist: Bluff
Necromancer: Heal
Transmuter: Disguise

These are just off the top of my head, I'd be interested to hear any suggestions. Oh, BTW, there was a feat called "Spell Thematics" in one of the FR books that did make it more difficult to identify the caster's spells, I think it raised the DC by +5 or something.

 

[BigTom]

Also, for Spellcraft, think, DMs, Think! There are certain rolls that the Players should not get to roll-- like hear noise. They should not know what their dice roll was when you tell them what they hear-- otherwise they just won't believe you if they know they rolled low. Same with Spellcraft. You should roll it-- don't let them see it. Just ask, What is your spellcraft bonus? after rolling the dice. If it is an illusion, unless they roll a natural 20, tell them it is a spell that is similar to the illusion. So if the person casts an illusion of a dragon to attack the PCs, tell the person that they cast one of the "summon monster" spells-- don't say it is an illusion.

Except that is majorly house ruling spellcraft. The whole point of the skill is that you can identify what spell is being cast if you can observe the caster.

 

[ecliptic]

The whole point of the skill is that you can identify what spell is being cast if you can observe the caster.

So? Illusions are the only spells that are severly effected by it. Even if someone rolls a spellcraft on fireball, its still a fireball.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

It Surprises Me

It kinda surprises me that no one has mentioned the Sleight of Hand skill like the bluff skill was mentioned, or the disguise skill for that matter. All of these skills can help the illusionist and since your primary stat is Int then you should have a lot of those extra skill points. For an illusionist it might just be smart to take those in one of the three skills I mentioned, or, better yet, since illusionists are so roguish anyway, take that first level in rogue and get all three of those skills. If you are caught out in the open then ask the DM to allow you to make a bluff and sleight of hand check as you make that wizard across the field *think* its a summon monster or a fireball. If you roll really well on your checks then that wizard should have some major penalties to his Spellcraft check, and it may even be a case of making him believe even more firmly in the illusion if he only rolls 'so-so' because he has picked up on those movements and words that go with fireball.

just my two cents

 

[milotha]

I wholeheartedly agree. I liked it when Illusionists were a very distinct class, rather than just another Wizard who gets to cast an extra Illusion spell of each level, and gets slightly-more effective illusions. I really like the idea of "specialist" wizards getting access to spells that generalists do not.

I agree too. It's just part of the whole nerfing of spells for wizards that has been 3.5 IMHO. I think that illusionists have been sacrificed on the altar of balance.