Troll Lord Games

how has the illusionist been working out in games?

Fine, but I don't use the new stuff. At least not yet. Going to try one or two of the new spells.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

It's by far a much cooler class than it ever was. In the previous printings, some of the benefits to the illusionist class were based on the strength of the player (imagination, etc). Now, clearly there is an up front and striking benefit to the illusionist class that is hard to deny. I'm not a fan of many the spells that Jim Ward added to the list, but the healing, however you describe its effects, is fantastic. The illusionist is now, mechanically dynamic and more than a sometimes perceived one-trick pony.

Now if we can only get that damn druid Heat Metal spell fixed...
~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

The illusionist is now a strong contender in its own right, rivaling our cleric and wizard.

It's also a fun balance that while the Illusionist has some solid spells, a bad roll can knock then down a few pegs. i.e., the player NEVER casts dragon mount in urban areas. The heals help too.

I'm kind of running a "mini-campaign" to see how some classes work (the game consists of an illusionist, a barbarian, and a class-and-a-half cleric/bard).

I've taken, without testing, the healing spells out of the mix for the illusionist. I'll never make a comparison of C&C to 4e, but I don't want another class to heal. And even after reading, and rereading, the justification of it in the PHB, it does nothing to convince me. I like the concpet, truthfully, but I find the delivery lacking. So, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I've changed out the healing spells for False Life spells of various power (I also removed Neutralize Poison and Heal for Greater Invisibility and Superior Invisibility, respectively). I've added False Life to the Illusion school (as well as Necromancy, which it currently belongs). These are all "illusionist only" spells (and are subject to change) ay the present time.

The players know what I've removed, and fortunately they all agree with my decision. Right now the illusionist can still "heal" but, again, I didn't like the whole "perception is reality" mantra when applied to healing. I understand it, but don't agree with it. To those that do...more power to you! So far, False Life is working great - to me it really gives a good feel to the "illusionist healing" aspect. To me and my players, it fits, flavor and concept, perfectly. They only have access to the least version of the spell (which grants 1d10 temporary hit points for 1 minute/level of the caster) but it's saved their bacon a few times.

If worse came to worse, then I'd remove all versions of healing from them (mine included) and just go without them. But I was one that never had problems with them before. As for the rest of the new spells, some are pretty good and others...are ,well, interesting to say the least.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Mac Golden wrote:
how has the illusionist been working out in games?

I haven't seen the new illusionist in a game yet, but... And I guess I digress here a bit...

I have always seen illusionists as simultaneously weaker and conceivably incredibly more powerful than a wizard. Where their spells, by design have less immediate effect, the application is limited only to that of the creativity of the player in question. Where spells are set to cause direct damage, wizard spells are save or half damage in almost all cases, whereas the illusionist is save or no damage for the majority of their spells. For example...

Both casters are 5th level...

A wizard casts a fireball, it has a 40' diameter and does 5d6 damage. Anyone caught in it's area of effect can save or take 1/2 damage. Challenge level of save is 5.

An illusionist casts major image at the same target area, simulation the explosion of a fireball. This can do 5d4 damage (I have adjudicated d4 rather than d6 to show that the target creature has no idea of the actual power of the caster, thus limiting the damage received), and continues to explode each round, until 3 rounds after the caster concentrates on it. It is a save or nothing result, and once saved against, the creature no longer needs to save, and does not see the illusion. Those that are affected, as long as the remain in the AoE, get a save each round (and I would grant a bonus of +2/round to the save) to see through the illusion. Further, the Illusionist must be relatively close, since the illusion at 5th level creates an effect of 90 cubic feet, that means his opponent can be no more than 70' away from him, unless of course he create the illusion of a wizard casting the spell each round (in which case normal range of the Major Image spell is allowed), but still the wizard appearing from no where will grant a +2 to all saves on the first round to any that witness it's sudden appearance. Challenge level of save is 5.

Some would argue that you can't do this with this spell, since there is another spell Shadow Evocation that can mimic the Fireball, and it is a 5th level spell. I would state that they are correct to a point. Shadow Evocation does specifically state that it mimics a fireball, among other spells; however, it also goes on to state that even on a successful save, the target still receives 20% of the normal effect, and further Greater Shadow Evocation would still receive 40% of the normal effect.

This is but one example of using an illusion to cause damage, and a fairly simple one at that. Others I have seen, including the way the DM ruled when I had an illusionist character of mine make it appear that the upper levels of the castle were crumbling and the ceiling over the Baron and his entourage collapse on top of them. Only a few made their saves, the others took massive damage, not a few dieing, and others being pinned and taking crushing damage till they died or disbelieved the spell. And again, this example, merely distorting reality, with a low level spell.

At a still relatively low spell level of 4, Phantasmal Killer is an incredibly powerful spell. Creating a creature that will attack for a minimum of 7 rounds, doing at least 4d6 damage, or at most instant death, all based on an Int save! So that is 28-168 HP, or an average of 84HP of damage, assuming the target makes their save every round. The HP damage alone will slay many of the beings you take on. Imagine a 15th level fighter, with a con of 18, she will have an average of 100hp, with a max of 150hp. Using just averages, by the time the spell expires, the fighter would have been probably focusing on this creature, leaving herself exposed to other threats, and with 84HP already gone, even at max HP, the other characters in the party would finish her quickly, assuming that she makes all of the saves and does not succumb to instant death. A fighter with out an Int prime would have a Challenge Base of 18, plus the Challenge level of 7 (caster), for a total of 25, subtract the character level (15) and that leaves a save check against a roll of a 10... a coin toss... Think you can get 7 heads in a row? The unfortunate 15th level fighter doesn't really have a chance against the 7th level illusionist with this spell. The wizard doesn't have anything comparable, the closest being the 6th level spell Disintegrate, and 7th level spell Finger of Death. Both of these though are instantaneous effects, one save or die, if successful take damage. Disintegrate is 5d6 damage, and Finger of Death 3d6 +1/level. 6th level spells are achieved at 11th level, and 7th at 13th level. There are other insta-kill spells at higher levels, but again, they are instantaneous durations.

So, back to my point, Illusionist's, played by sufficiently devious, ok, sufficiently creative people have the potential to far outstrip their arcane cohorts in any given scenario, and in the long run, an even better probability of having a greater impact to the campaign as a whole.

I believe if the subject makes its save vs. phantasmal killer they can no longer be affected by it,so it won't be able to do that sort of damage to the target.

IMP
_________________
"Vae, p**o deus fio:"

For the most part I dig the changes to the illusionist and the one in use in my game is working out fairly well. However, a number of the new spells will likely never get used. They seem rather forced and lacking.

koralas wrote:
I have always seen illusionists as simultaneously weaker and conceivably incredibly more powerful than a wizard.

Anecdotally, you also get the DM's who use those gray areas to cripple a class. Does an Illusionist have to save when he uses his own Dragon Mount?

For every CK that says "yes" there are five GMs that say "no."

One nice side effect of the new illusionist is that with minimal tweakage, it also makes a stand in for a psionist concept as well.

I like the new illusionist spells. I'm really kind of 'eh' about the healing, though. Mechanically, I can see how it makes sense, but it seems to be a little counter to the spirit of the class.

One thing I was thinking is that perhaps the Illusionist should have an ability (not a spell) to pull off something like the Jedi Mind Trick. And eventually, perhaps an ability to detect the thoughts of others if they focus enough. The way I see illusionists, they really do border on the psionic ... not quite full-on, but if they're manipulating the mind and perception ...

ChaosImp wrote:
I believe if the subject makes its save vs. phantasmal killer they can no longer be affected by it,so it won't be able to do that sort of damage to the target.

IMP

Unlike spells such as Minor and Major Image, which state that if a victim succeeds at an Int check to disbelieve, then they are not affected by the illusion, Phantasmal Killer has no such qualifier on disbelieving the spell. In fact the word disbelieve does not appear in the spell description, it states the victim must succeed at an Int check or die, if the check is successful, the victim still takes 4d6 damage. Further, Phantasmal Killer has a flat duration of 1 round/level, unlike the other illusions which are concentration plus X rounds. So unlike the other illusions that state if you disbelieve you are no longer affected, this spell infers the possibility of either...

a. Fail your Int save and the target dies

-or-

b. Make your Int save and the target takes 4d6 damage

From that you can deduce the following...

a. If you fail your save, you are dead, no need for a duration of the spell

-and-

b. If you succeed, you take damage and the spell continues for the duration (1 round/level)

In other words, why list a duration of the spell if you succeed at your save and it is effectively dispelled, but if you fail your save you die? Neither case would need a duration, it would be an instantaneous effect. Also, and take this to the next logical step, since the creature will chase down the victim, and is able to pass any barrier except anti-magic zones, including a minor globe of invulnerability, the description continues to imply that if you succeed at the save, the Phantasmal Killer continues to pursue the target. Continuing, the Phantasmal Killer itself cannot be harmed, thus if the character is still alive (having made it's save) it can attack the creature, but can do it no harm; additional proof of the spell still being active.

Earlier editions of the game (read D&D not C&C since there is only one edition of C&C ) varied in the listed duration. In 1st/2nd Edition the duration was 1 round/level, and the rules did state that the target had one chance to disbelieve the illusion (this would require a specific statement of disbelieving, not just the mere fact the spell is cast, much like any illusion). If that one attempt was successful, then the spell is terminated at that point, if not, the full duration is utilized. The save was a special save against the intelligence score, with various modifiers, roll under Int with modifiers applied and you disbelieve it. (Note, it did not use the INT modifier in this instance, but rather the WIS modifier) Further, the creature did have to make attack rolls (counted as a 4HD creature), if it hit, the character died, period, no further save against death. However, in 3.xE, the duration was instantaneous, the victim got a save automatically to disbelieve, if failed a save vs. fort to determine if he dies or suffers 3d6 damage.

It is possible something was left out of the spell description to make it more in line with earlier editions, the duration as listed is a misprint, or perhaps the spell was meant to be as deadly as it is. As written, and presented in the C&C PHB, the spell is just that deadly. Magic in C&C is much deadlier than in other editions of the game; however if this is a misprint or missing information, then I am sure the Trolls will correct it with some errata... In fact I hope they see this post and can chime in!
Ok, now I will also give the one portion of the spell that seems a obscure. The first sentence of the last paragraph states that "if the illusionist casting the spell is killed before the effect reaches the target, the spell ends". This is an odd statement given the following...

a. What is the "effect", the death of the target or the target being damaged? (I would argue, based on the spell title, that the death of the target is the effect)

b. The range of the spell is 50', and there is no description of the creature appearing anywhere but in the mind of the victim, so it would, upon casting, be on top of the victim and attacking

c. No statistics of any kind are presented for the creature, no movement rate, and more importantly, no BtH, so it would be inferred that the creature moves with the target (being nothing more that a figment of his imagination), and the spell description does not state that the creature must roll to hit (thus no BtH, again because the creature only exists in the target's mind, he perceives himself being struck when the creature attacks)

These three puzzles introduced in that one sentence can be a basis towards an argument for only one save is needed and the spell is terminated.

Ultimately, the CK and Players should make a determination on this, and apply it consistently. C&C is best served when the group of friends playing the game inject their own house rules into it, to make it a game that they enjoy playing. However, if one wishes to run a game at a convention, or more specifically a tournament, a much more rigid set of rules is needed, i.e. the "A" in AD&D, and why it was much more codified than "O"D&D or BECMI(for those who like me, sometimes take a little longer to get it, BECMI is the suite of D&D rules published under the following sets - Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, Immortals; sadly to say it took me a day or two after first seeing that, quite some time ago, to dawn on me what it meant). For such settings, ruling as written in the books is necessary, or a listing of modified rules is required to be distributed. However, since you are at a Con with limited time frames, such lists should be kept short so it does not eat into the time slot. But here, as I tend to do at times, I digress...

anglefish wrote:
Anecdotally, you also get the DM's who use those gray areas to cripple a class. Does an Illusionist have to save when he uses his own Dragon Mount?

For every CK that says "yes" there are five GMs that say "no."

True, and in many ways those that say the illusionist must save is silly. Now the others that may want to ride with him, that could be another story, especially since most times a dragon is found, it is not a good thing... Now I think Dragon Mount should be renamed Shadow Dragon Mount, not necessarily a shadow dragon mind you, but in the same way as the Shades spell. That is to say that the illusion is semi-solid, even when disbelieved. As such, it would be able to be ridden, even if disbelieved.

Of course, this also falls in the camp of DM's that say you always get to save vs. an illusion, rather than being required to actively disbelieve it. To me, unless there are special circumstance, there are no automatic save attempts. For example, if an illusionist tries to create the illusion of a very well known being to the target (wife, good friend, etc.), then no, no auto save; however, the auto save would be rolled by me as the CK, and if passed, let the character know something does not look/sound right about the individual, thus giving them a clue to attempt a disbelieve check. Another example would be when an illusion is about to do damage to the target. In this instance, as the CK, I whould roll for the player, and if successful, announce damage as normal, then pass the player a note stating that there is an additional effect as written on the note. Obviously, the note states that the character doesn't actually feel any pain, and has not lost any HP, at this point the player should deduce that it is an illusion, and attempt a full disbelieve. The same could go for things appearing out of nowhere, or something occurring that is highly improbable.

In fact, when as a CK I am determining whether an NPC creature attempts to disbelieve an illusion, I tend to use a similar method. Since it is not fair, as the CK, knowing it is an illusion, having the opponent automatically save against it.

ChaosImp wrote:
I believe if the subject makes its save vs. phantasmal killer they can no longer be affected by it,so it won't be able to do that sort of damage to the target.

IMP

well that can't be right. You're reading it as saying once you save you never can be affected by that caster again with that spell ?? That has to be wrong. Talk about a useless class.
_________________
Nightstorm: So tell me something about your elf.

Zippo: He's an elf. He lives in the woods.

Nightstorm: Did you hear that Gary? "His elf lives in the woods"

koralas wrote:
a. If you fail your save, you are dead, no need for a duration of the spell

-and-

b. If you succeed, you take damage and the spell continues for the duration (1 round/level)

No, the Killer "makes an attack" (my italics) and the result it either death or psychic (illusory) damage. The spell then ends. The duration doesn't mean that attacks continue subsequently, the duration simply measures how long the Killer has to reach the target.

[quote="nightstorm"][quote="ChaosImp"]I believe if the subject makes its save vs. phantasmal killer they can no longer be affected by it,so it won't be able to do that sort of damage to the target.

IMP[/quote]

well that can't be right. You're reading it as saying once you save you never can be affected by that caster again with that spell ?? That has to be wrong. Talk about a useless class.[/quote]

I would think that this would be for that encounter/combat only. Not for the duration of the characters life. After all, the target has seen this shot and is prepared for it should it be used again during the fight.

The class isn't terrible, but properly played, it is arguably among the most powerful classes in the game.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

anglefish wrote:
Anecdotally, you also get the DM's who use those gray areas to cripple a class. Does an Illusionist have to save when he uses his own Dragon Mount?

For every CK that says "yes" there are five GMs that say "no."

One nice side effect of the new illusionist is that with minimal tweakage, it also makes a stand in for a psionist concept as well.

RAW: A character may voluntarily fail a saving throw. This renders the point moot I would think.

We haven't tried the "new" class and spells out yet. One of my player's is itching to give it a try though, so may be I will have some input after we start our new campaign at the end of the month.

So far, we like everything we have read in the PHB, especially the healing spells being added for the illusionist.
_________________
Lord Aladar

Warden of the Welk Wood

Baron of the Castles & Crusades Society

The Poster formerly known as Alwyn

Senior Gamer - Member of the Senior RPG Tour

"NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT - At least not in Yu Gi Oh"
http://www.cncsociety.org/

Go0gleplex wrote:
The class isn't terrible, but properly played, it is arguably among the most powerful classes in the game.

I don't think the illusionist in the Castles & Crusades game is an entry level class. In fact, even some verterans might not play the class up to it's potential. If the CK really looks into the illusionist spells, and has a an above average player making the most out of those spells, I think think the illusionist is DEFINITELY one of the most powerful classes in the game. But this saying goes with the caveat: lock-down style CKs and unimaginative players might not see the real awesomeness of the illusionist class.

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Tenser's Floating Disk wrote:
No, the Killer "makes an attack" (my italics) and the result it either death or psychic (illusory) damage. The spell then ends. The duration doesn't mean that attacks continue subsequently, the duration simply measures how long the Killer has to reach the target.

I would agree with the exception that the range of the spell is incredibly short, i.e. 50', no stats are given for how quickly the creature can move, and the creature is manifested directly in the target's mind, thus it would be on top of the victim upon casting (following along the short range of the spell), and immediately attack. With no stats given, this implies that the attack is an automatic hit. The result of the attack is either death or damage. The spell does not state that after a single attack the spell ends. Perhaps that is the intention (the an you point to), but why then a duration? After all as I stated above, the creature would be manifested right next to the victim and attack immediately.

Now, if you go back to a 1st/2nd Ed. version and require the creature to roll to hit the victim, the duration is easily explained, along with the statements about moving with the victim, since the creature can miss the attack. Also, aside from the initial special save (special in that it was 3d6 with modifiers and had to be under the victims Int.) to disbelieve the creature, there is no save vs. the death result of an attack in that version of the spell. If the attack hits, the victim dies, period. Still though, no stat's provided in the C&C version of the spell, and a damage value if the save is made, with the victim being able to save every round (nothing stating you save and it is dispelled), differentiates the spell.

With only a 50' range, it could take but 1 or 2 rounds (3 on the outside) to move away from the illusionist, who must stay concentrating on the spell, thus move quite slowly. Of course the illusionists companions should be working to keep the victim from fleeing... Still it would be relatively easy to escape (with a few successful save rolls), regardless of how fast the creature can move, even with it ignoring all terrain, since the victim will quickly get out of range. This range is a bit more generous early on, compared to the 1st/2nd Ed. version which had a range of 1/2" (5') per level. So at 8th level (in 1st Ed.) when 4th level Illusionist spells were attained, it had a range of but 40'; however after 10th level, the range is extended beyond that of the C&C spell. BTW, the SRD has the spell range at 100'+10'/level, with an instantaneous duration, save to disbelieve, then save to avoid death, if the last save is successful, still take 3d6 damage.

The spell description is rather ambiguous, if the spell only allows for one attack. In this case, the duration should be instantaneous as in 3.xE and d20. However, if multiple attacks are allowed, the duration is as listed. Since the spells were mostly adapted from the SRD, but were made to be more reminiscent of "old school" gaming, they are considerably more deadly than the 3E equivalents. This spell is an example of such a mixture of flavors, but perhaps a few lines are missing in the description that brings it more in line with the older versions of the spell.

How to eliminate the ambiguity? Well, obviously alter the spell description. Here are four possibilities.

First, if only a single attack is allowed, extend the range and make the spell instantaneous (most in line with the SRD).

Second, allow an initial Int save to disbelieve the spell entirely, following that require the creature to make a to hit roll, if the victim is struck, there is no save, it dies (most in line with 1st/2nd Ed.), leave the duration as is.

The third option would be to allow that initial Int save to disbelieve entirely, then the creature automatically hits the victim, which must then make a save vs. Charisma to die or take damage (a more hybrid approach), leave the duration as is. Since the victim is dieing of fright in this case, Cha would make more sense than Int as the spell lists. This is consistent with the C&C rules where Charisma is used against insta-kill and fear effects.

Finally, take the spell mostly as written, but specify a single attack per round, place a movement rate on the creature, and have the illusionist appear to morph into the nightmare beast, and have it then be required to move to the victim. To facilitate this, the range of the spell should be greatly increased (perhaps back to the SRD 100'+10'/level, or at a minimum the 50'+10'/level), grant the creature a movement rate of at least 1/2 again the victim (this is his worst nightmare after all), it's attacks strike automatically, and the save should be changed to Cha. This last is a hybrid again, but does alter the spell quite a bit. (Alternatively you can mix this with the second option, one Int save to disbelieve entirely and require the creature to roll to hit with a failure resulting in death, success means no effect.)

Now of these, the last description is the most dramatic, in ROLEplaying terms, while the third is technically the most deadly in ROLLplaying. Why would I consider the third the most deadly? Because while the save target will not be very far from the creatures chance to hit, in the second example, if the creature misses you take no damage, whereas in the third example if you make your save, you still take damage.

nwelte1 wrote:
RAW: A character may voluntarily fail a saving throw. This renders the point moot I would think.

Ah yes, the (h) designation... Or harmless spells that you may choose not to save against, such as Dragon Mount and Polymorph Other. Still some CK's will opt to ignore that...

The funny thing is that those "harmless" spells saves are optional, where a beneficial spell, ie. Illusionist healing spells, is not allowed to be optional. That is it is not marked (h)...

Go0gleplex wrote:
I would think that this would be for that encounter/combat only. Not for the duration of the characters life. After all, the target has seen this shot and is prepared for it should it be used again during the fight.

The class isn't terrible, but properly played, it is arguably among the most powerful classes in the game.

Actually, if you allow a save or disbelieve option here, it would only be effective against that casting... The Illusionist, providing she has memorized the spell more than once, could cast again, even in the same encounter, requiring another save.

Oh, and one other comment from ChaosImp's original post, if you saved against the PK, and it dispells it, why would you take any damage from it?