Illusionist healing spells

[Tadhg]

The illusionist version of the spell acts in the same manner with one important
exception. The recipient of the spell must make an intelligence saving throw. If
the creature fails the saving throw, the spell acts normally. If the creature makes
the saving throw, the spell fails as the creature realizes that the spell is an
illusion. An illusionist cannot cause damage to undead.

Sense the Illusionist is busted when the creature fails the save, that would mean everyone who seen it should now know he's an Illusionist. Seeing as Wizards don't cast cure spells. So how could anyone who seen this happen keep getting a save to believe the Illusions.

I think you mean, when the creature makes the save - that others may wonder if the caster is an illusionist. But, I would argue that those others have to try and make the their own saves. If they fail and then believe the illusion, they will act accordingly.

So, for example - an illusion of a giant flying dwarf to a party of orcs . . all will have to roll saves. Let's say 3 fail and they run, 2 make the save and disbelieve.

IMO, the 3 that fail run to get away and don't care or wonder why the other 2 are staying. And perhaps, the staying 2 wonder why the other 3 are running and hesitate to move or react (I would roll dice for this).

Of course, this will be the fun of CK'ing this scenario and how illusions are handled/perceived and reacted to, by creatures having to deal with them.

[dunbruha]

I kind of answer that one just as simply. Ever been dreaming and crazy things happen and you just accept them as real until you wake up and then they seem ridiculous?

The illusionist is able to get into that space in your head.

At the time you can't shake it (if you fail your save) even if it seems bizarre/wrong but after the effect is gone you might know just what had happened (if you knew about the illusionist ala your example).

and just like a dream, it can't hurt you at all. And if you dreamed you got better, you really didn't.

[Geleg]

Personally, I do not see a reason that arcane cannot heal, and would, if designing my own game, probably stick most spellcasting in a single class, and move "clerics" into a semi-caster status, or something with powers instead of spells. So, illusionists being able to heal doesn't affect me, but I also don't see why wizards can't.

This.

But given that I haven't done what Mark describes, and that I'm sticking with D&D/C&C tropes, I find that I don't want peanut butter (healing) in my chocolate (illusions). I voted to keep them out.

[Philosopher]

Knowing that someone is an illusionist would not make a difference. Much research has been done on the placebo effect. If you tell someone that you're giving them a sugar pill with no medicine, they will still get a little better after taking it, although not as much as someone who took actual medicine. If you want healing through an illusion, you've got it. The last thing you should assume is that our minds work according to rational principles.

[Treebore]

Knowing that someone is an illusionist would not make a difference. Much research has been done on the placebo effect. If you tell someone that you're giving them a sugar pill with no medicine, they will still get a little better after taking it, although not as much as someone who took actual medicine. If you want healing through an illusion, you've got it. The last thing you should assume is that our minds work according to rational principles.

The "placebo" effect is only about 35% effective when people do NOT know they aren't getting the real deal (Some studies got up to 60% with some things). So when the medicine/treatment is effective you will see results significantly higher than what your seeing in the placebo group.

Now if you have a study where people were told they were being given a meaningless pill and still felt better, I would be interested in that. Normally the "Placebo Effect" only occurs in groups that believe they are being given an effective medicine for treatment.

So what does the placebo effect tell us? Thats up to debate, but my bet is it tells us people claim to be in far worse shape than they really are at a rate of 30 to 60%. IE, they are going for sympathy.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

All I can say is, it's FANTASY. If a system comes out that says that illusionists can heal, fine. They can heal. They can't do it as well as clerics can, so that's a good thing. By my houserules, the clerics can burn prepped slots to spontaneously cast Cure...Wounds spells. Illusionists can't. I'd think that the illusionist would take, at most, one slot that would be prepped with a healing spell, "For emergency use only." If I can suspend disbelief about the thought of a dragon, or a hoboblin, or, God forbid, a mogrl standing in front of me, I can suspend it to allow illusionists to cast healing spells, even though previous versions of FRPGs didn't allow it.

[Mark Hall]

All I can say is, it's FANTASY. If a system comes out that says that illusionists can heal, fine. They can heal. They can't do it as well as clerics can, so that's a good thing. By my houserules, the clerics can burn prepped slots to spontaneously cast Cure...Wounds spells. Illusionists can't. I'd think that the illusionist would take, at most, one slot that would be prepped with a healing spell, "For emergency use only." If I can suspend disbelief about the thought of a dragon, or a hoboblin, or, God forbid, a mogrl standing in front of me, I can suspend it to allow illusionists to cast healing spells, even though previous versions of FRPGs didn't allow it.

I also allow clerics to burn slots for healing. Makes them a lot more popular.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I also allow clerics to burn slots for healing. Makes them a lot more popular.

It's one of the things I do really like from 3.x. I thought it was a great idea and still do. I don't let druids do spontaneous casting, but definitely clerics.

[Mark Hall]

Druids get more than enough.

[Go0gleplex]

I also allow clerics to burn slots for healing. Makes them a lot more popular.

It's one of the things I do really like from 3.x. I thought it was a great idea and still do. I don't let druids do spontaneous casting, but definitely clerics.

+1

[anglefish]

and just like a dream, it can't hurt you at all. And if you dreamed you got better, you really didn't.

If you had a weak heart and dreamed a nightmare that you thought was real and very stressful, the night terrors just might kill you anyway.

I still vote for the placebo effect as well. It's fairly well documented.

[JediOre]

Druids get more than enough.

Please elaborate! One of my friends thinks the C&C druid is almost worthless compared to the 3.X druid.

[Mark Hall]

Druids get more than enough.

Please elaborate! One of my friends thinks the C&C druid is almost worthless compared to the 3.X druid.

When you compare things to 3e, yeah, almost everyone is weak. However

1) Good spells, good weapons. Armor is OK, with decent HP and third tier BtH.
2) Animal Friendship spell. It's not as good as 3e's Animal Companions with their bonus HD, tricks, and attribute bonuses, but they're great advantages at lower levels.
3) Shapechanging. Much more limited than 3e's wildshape, but still a useful set of abilities.

3e Druids are usually held to be three different classes... you've got top-of-the-line spellcasting, animal companion and summoning abilities, AND decent melee abilities, especially once wildshape starts up. If they were JUST any of those things, they'd be a decent class. In 3e, they're all of those things, at the same time. A 5th level druid can turn into a dinosaur, cast call lightning, and run into battle along side his dinosaur friend... and still keep casting spells.

In C&C, they CAN be all of these... you can stand in melee as a secondary (moreso if you start getting exotic armors... dragonhides and the like), especially when backed up by your animal friends. You've got a good selection of spells, offensive, defensive and utility. You can pick your animal forms for various tasks... but you lack the sheer, overpowered variety of things a 3e druid can do, and the ability to do them all at once.

[Philosopher]

Knowing that someone is an illusionist would not make a difference. Much research has been done on the placebo effect. If you tell someone that you're giving them a sugar pill with no medicine, they will still get a little better after taking it, although not as much as someone who took actual medicine. If you want healing through an illusion, you've got it. The last thing you should assume is that our minds work according to rational principles.

The "placebo" effect is only about 35% effective when people do NOT know they aren't getting the real deal (Some studies got up to 60% with some things). So when the medicine/treatment is effective you will see results significantly higher than what your seeing in the placebo group.

Now if you have a study where people were told they were being given a meaningless pill and still felt better, I would be interested in that. Normally the "Placebo Effect" only occurs in groups that believe they are being given an effective medicine for treatment.

So what does the placebo effect tell us? Thats up to debate, but my bet is it tells us people claim to be in far worse shape than they really are at a rate of 30 to 60%. IE, they are going for sympathy.

Yes, the placebo is not as effective as actual medicine (which I stated). I can't tell you were this is documented, but from what I learned about placebos back in university (too long ago to remember sources, I'm afraid), there are two aspects involved in the effect. There is expectation, but there is also classical conditioning. Even if you know you're taking a sugar pill, if you've been conditioned to feel a certain way after taking a pill, the body will react in similar ways.

I am not claiming that placebos are an effective form of healing. All I'm pointing out is that knowing that something is fake does not always negate its effects. Take that fact and put it into a fantasy setting, and it makes it reasonable to assume that knowing that someone is an illusionist does not negate the effects of her illusions. If there is even the slightest bit of unconscious doubt, the magic may amplify it to make the illusion effective. Also note that I'm not claiming that all campaigns have to work this way. If you don't want illusionists with healing, then remove those spells. But that doesn't mean that they should be removed from the game altogether, because it's a legitimate approach to take.

[Breakdaddy]

As for Clerics getting to cast healing spells spontaneously: There are actually two useful "advantages" in the CKG that can address that "by the book" if needed. One is a "signature spell" advantage that works for any spellcaster that allows for substitution of a single spell per spell level for any memorized spell on demand. Another directly addresses the cleric for spontaneous healing magic.

[Lord Crimson]

But the current line of thinking in this thread is exactly why I don't like the healing aspects - it's illusion...it's not real. The "shadow evocation" spells being an exception. Perhaps it would be a little easier to swallow if the healing was quasi-real on a failed save and not real at all on a successful save. As much as I read the justifications on illusionist healing, though, it just reads more like evocaton or conjuration to me than illusion. *shrug*

Now, I'm not in favor one way or another. So I have no horse in this race.

But...

Why don't we just assume in the opposite direction then? Illusionist healing IS shadow magic (just like shadow evocation and shadow conjuration). But since allies always choose to fail their save, they get full effect instead of the "lessened percentage" effect one would get from a resisted shadow effect.

I mean, arguing it from that end of things, I'm almost convinced to embrace Illusionist healing wholeheartedly, despite how tepid I've been to it in the past.

[Go0gleplex]

I don't think I'd categorize it as shadow magic, since such has definite connotation and connections (vis critters of the same name) to the negative energy planes. Were I to attempt to rationalize it in that vein, I'd equate it to some sort of light magic, cauterizing the wounds or channeling positive energy...but then you get dangerously close to clerical type magic.

[csperkins1970]

Why don't we just assume in the opposite direction then? Illusionist healing IS shadow magic (just like shadow evocation and shadow conjuration). But since allies always choose to fail their save, they get full effect instead of the "lessened percentage" effect one would get from a resisted shadow effect.

I mean, arguing it from that end of things, I'm almost convinced to embrace Illusionist healing wholeheartedly, despite how tepid I've been to it in the past.

That's how I would implement illusionist healing. Since they've historically been able to draw upon the plane of shadow to create quasi-real effects, I'd rule that healing works in a similar manner.

The plane of shadow lies between the positive material (which is where healing magic is drawn from) and negative material planes so it's not too cheesy.

[Lord Crimson]

I don't think I'd categorize it as shadow magic, since such has definite connotation and connections (vis critters of the same name) to the negative energy planes. Were I to attempt to rationalize it in that vein, I'd equate it to some sort of light magic, cauterizing the wounds or channeling positive energy...but then you get dangerously close to clerical type magic.

The assumption of "shadow = negative" pretty much didn't even exist until 3.X D&D.

AD&D illusionists were not assumed to be whipping out negative energy with a shadow fireball. Instead, shadow was quasi-real and, as csperkins points out, fell between light and darkness (a.k.a. positive and negative energy).

[Rigon]

LC and CSP, that is a very good explanation of why illusionists in my gam can use curing/healing magics. Thanks.

R-

[Fiffergrund]

The CKG has a much better rationale for why and how illusionists deal with healing. I wasn't initially a fan, but the new rationale makes it far more acceptable to me for in game use.

For this reason alone, I vote to keep it. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, so this is strictly IMO.

From the CKG (the new mechanic is not listed but the text for the rationale is):
"C&C has taken a wholly unique approach to illusionary magic in making the illusion real. This is not because of the weakness of the target, nor because of his inability to discern the real from the unreal. It rests in the power of the illusionist. The more powerful the illusionist, the greater the impact the illusionist and his spells can have on the game. If the illusionist is an actual spellcaster capable of manipulating the world around him, then logic and the enterprising player eventually arrive at the healer’s door.
In C&C illusionists can heal damage. They heal damage in the same manner in which they cause damage—not by tricking their targets but rather by projecting their own magical power into the target and changing the nature of time and substance. They do not trick the target’s mind into psychically healing itself; that assumption assumes the target is mentally able to do such a thing. The power of the illusionist does not reside in the target; the illusionist’s power solely resides in the illusionist. Illusionists heal through their own magic, while a cleric channels the magic of a deity, serving as a bridge between the deity and the target to heal it. An illusionist channels or controls the natural magic of the world around him, using the target’s own mind as a bridge between the magic and the target; the more powerful the illusionist, the greater his ability to cross that bridge."

The one problem with this: the very name "illusion" implies the effects are not real.

[Fiffergrund]

Incidentally, I've been reading the 4th printing again in prep for my new games...

The illusionist class, particularly the list of spells, is grating to me to the degree that it's like chewing on aluminum foil.

I'd have to completely redo that class if I allowed it. And I generally fall in line with the Trolls, but as I hinted above, I prefer illusions to be...

illusionary.

[Go0gleplex]

I don't think I'd categorize it as shadow magic, since such has definite connotation and connections (vis critters of the same name) to the negative energy planes. Were I to attempt to rationalize it in that vein, I'd equate it to some sort of light magic, cauterizing the wounds or channeling positive energy...but then you get dangerously close to clerical type magic.

The assumption of "shadow = negative" pretty much didn't even exist until 3.X D&D.

AD&D illusionists were not assumed to be whipping out negative energy with a shadow fireball. Instead, shadow was quasi-real and, as csperkins points out, fell between light and darkness (a.k.a. positive and negative energy).

Actually, it did. The shade in 1e/2e established the link if memory serves.

[Traveller]

For the record, way back on page one Sir Osis of Liver was quoting me when he mentioned C&C "Jumping the Shark". In the "The First Split" thread I mentioned two areas that were going to cause a split. The first one was illusionist healing and the second has no bearing on this thread. I mentioned that both areas that were going to cause a split were instances where C&C jumped the shark. If I recall, my rationale behind the removal of illusionist healing was twofold:

• Illusionist healing dilutes the illusionist archetype.
• CKs now have to houserule illusionist healing OUT of the book.

It's always easier to add something new into the rules than it is to remove them from the book in the first place, and illusionist healing is a prime example of this. As I mentioned on "The First Split", players now have something they might like IN THE PHB, and will complain to the CK when they don't get it.

"It's in the book! Why aren't you following the rules? I should have this!"

Illusionist healing should have been limited to the CKG and not included at all in the PHB, especially if the CKG is intended as a book of options. I believe the presence of illusionist healing was nothing more than a gimmick. A way to say, "we're different" to a market becoming increasingly flooded by simulacrum games. If illusionist healing IS a gimmick, then ditch it, because I don't believe C&C needs gimmicks. If illusionist healing IS NOT a gimmick, ditch it anyway because it muddies otherwise clearly defined roles: that of the healer (cleric) and conjurer (illusionist).

[Geleg]

Incidentally, I've been reading the 4th printing again in prep for my new games...

The illusionist class, particularly the list of spells, is grating to me to the degree that it's like chewing on aluminum foil.

I'd have to completely redo that class if I allowed it. And I generally fall in line with the Trolls, but as I hinted above, I prefer illusions to be... illusionary.

QFT. It's the one class that I strongly dislike. I haven't had to outright forbid it, since no player has expressed an interest in playing one, but like Fiffergrund I'd have to completely redo the spell list, at a minimum, to allow one. [I also disallow monks, but that's for reasons of setting, not mechanics]

[Dead Horse]

I agree on the spell list.
Most of, if not all of the new illusionist spells seem terrible to me.

Consider that i judge a properly played level 1 illusion to be no more powerful then any other level 1 spell. Then extrapolate that to mean any illusion spell can not simulate a more powerful spell level than its own.
You have a handy guide for how much damage an illusion should do at most.
By my own guidlines the new illusion spells are woefully under powered.

I have allowed illusionists to simulate other casters spells.
Illusion of a magic missle, illusion of a fireball, and simulate real things like an illusionary pit.

I am seriously considering just putting the 4th phb print away and using my older 3rd prints.

[serleran]

I have said it before, and I will say it now. I would personally prefer one spell for illusionists to allow healing. Something like a level 4 spell.

Hmm... maybe something like this (which is very far from being "right.")

CURING COZENAGE, (Level 4 illusionist
CT 1 R touch D special
SV special SR yes (h) Comp V, S

Through application of this spell, the illusionist causes wounds and injuries to heal and mend, convincing the subject that they are getting restored to health. The effect improves as the caster gains levels, allowing for various curatives to be bestowed as follows:

Level _________ Equivalence
< 9 ___________ cure light wounds, slow poison, or other cleric healing spell of under 3rd level
10 - 13 _______ cure serious wounds, neutralize poison, or other cleric healing spell of under 5th level
14 - 17 _______ cure critical wounds, restoration, or other cleric healing spell of 5th level
18 - 20 _______ heal, atonement, or other cleric healing spell of under 7th level

Cleric healing spells which can be emulated are those which remove conditions such as curses, diseases, paralysis, and the like. For the purpose of this spell, they are not treated as spells which can return life such as raise dead.

No save is allowed when the spell is first cast. Instead, the recipient checks one hour per caster level; if this save is successful, curing cozenage ends immediately, all effects granted by it reversed. Sleep and other conditions, such as drunkenness, do not necessarily hinder effects of curing cozenage, subject to approval by the Castle Keeper.

[Lord Crimson]

Actually, it did. The shade in 1e/2e established the link if memory serves.

You mean the shades from FR? The ones from the City of Shade? If so, then, no, they didn't exist until the 3.0 FRCS.

If you mean something else, I'm pretty sure it was an exception rather than the rule.

Saying: "Here is something evil and aligned with negative energy that happens to comes from the plane of Shadow"; is not the same as saying: "Things from the Plane of Shadow are always evil and always aligned with negative energy."

[Go0gleplex]

1e, before FR...where the shade first appeared, the undead were created when the mortal merged with the plane of shadow and was gradually turned to evil due to its influence...or something like that. I'd have to dig out my MM to get the exact wording.

[mgtremaine]

My mind was wandering through this a bit more today and thought. The Illusionist is the "new psychic" class.

-Mike