Usefulness of an Illusionist

[Pinkcrusade]

Hello, Playground.


I am contemplating creating a Gnome Illusionist as the concept intrigues me, yet I am not one-hundred percent sure on how useful they are overall. What should their spell order look like for combat? Which are the best spells?

I am thinking of going exclusively Illusion (Master Specialist and the like), would this be a viable build against other relatively optimized characters?


Thanks.

[Gemini476]

Have you read about the Killer Gnome? Getting your [Shadow] Illusions up to 140% reality is quite impressive.

[nyjastul69]

You may want to speak with your DM about this. Some are lenient when it comes to illusions and some are much less so. Illusions require a great deal of DM interpretation. That being said, yes, Illusionists can be highly optimized. Your DM's discretion will likely be what makes the build viable or not.

[Kelb_Panthera]

As nyjastul mentioned, the usefulness of illusions is more DM dependent than most magics, barring shadowcraft mage shenanigans. So I'll just point out some commonly made errors to watch out for.

Some DM's think that all illusions are mind affecting and, consequently, let mindless creatures or otherwise mentally shielded characters completely ignore all illusions. This is incorrect. Only patterns and phantasms are mind affecting. Figments, glammers, and shadows affect mindless creatures just as well or better than other creatures since they are unable to question what they see. This is one of the most common and frustrating errors.

Another common mistake is allowing characters a save immediately upon seeing a figment, glammer, or shadow. You don't get to make a save against these types of illusions until you physically interact with them or closely study them. Simply seeing them is not enough. This is also an all too common and frustrating mistake.

As long as your DM is able to avoid these issues, illusions can be very effective when skillfully used.

[nedz]

This is the main archetype of character that I play.

To play one well you need to be creative, imaginative and realistic.

You don't need a huge spell selection, since there are only 1-3 spells of each level that you need: a Sorcerer will do fine. Beguilers are another option, though they lack some key spells — these require a little Op-fu.

I've never used the killer gnome class — you don't really need it. If your illusions are well crafted then this is overkill.

You need to be creative in order to see possible solutions to the problems at hand, and realistic in crafting believable effects. This latter point requires that you get inside the head of the victims and so how well the DM adjudicates this is key.

You do need options for when your illusions aren't going to work, but the shadow spells do provide a resource — as do spells from other schools. You still have to play the paper-scissors-stone game with opponents weak saves, and cover SR and incorporeal problems.

Spells of note
0 Ghost Sound
1 Colour Spray, Disguise Self, Silent Image
2 Invisibility, Minor Image, Mirror Image, Shadow Spray (early Fort save)
3 Displacement, Major Image
4 Hallucinatory Terrain or Nightmare Terrain, Illusory Wall (early permanent duration), Invisibility-Greater, Shadow Conjuration (BC, utility, flexibility)
5 Mirage Arcana, Shadow Evocation (just damage mainly)
6 Permanent Image, Shadow Walk
7 Project Image, Shadow Conjuration-Greater (BC, utility, flexibility)
8 Shadow Evocation-Greater (just damage mainly)
9 Shades (BC, utility, flexibility)

You can ignore the rest, though I have left out Simulacrum and Ice Assassin.
Many of these do similar effects and so could be swapped out by a Sorcerer as they level.

[Phelix-Mu]

Yes, as mentioned, DM interpretation of the rules, accurate or not, will be key to effectiveness.

That said, conceptually, illusionist is generally a terribly powerful concept. Create virtually real effects of scope only limited by some vague spell descriptions and your imagination. That's pretty powerful. The degree to which the virtual is real depends on some saves, and there are a few creature types this tactic isn't sterling against, but, all in all, illusion is awesomely powerful as a concept.

Since the mechanic itself is so DM dependent, though, it is of limited use in TO discussions. Like Lucid Dreaming.

[nyjastul69]

As nyjastul mentioned, the usefulness of illusions is more DM dependent than most magics, barring shadowcraft mage shenanigans. So I'll just point out some commonly made errors to watch out for.

Some DM's think that all illusions are mind affecting and, consequently, let mindless creatures or otherwise mentally shielded characters completely ignore all illusions. This is incorrect. Only patterns and phantasms are mind affecting. Figments, glammers, and shadows affect mindless creatures just as well or better than other creatures since they are unable to question what they see. This is one of the most common and frustrating errors.

Another common mistake is allowing characters a save immediately upon seeing a figment, glammer, or shadow. You don't get to make a save against these types of illusions until you physically interact with them or closely study them. Simply seeing them is not enough. This is also an all too common and frustrating mistake.

As long as your DM is able to avoid these issues, illusions can be very effective when skillfully used.

Thank you for elucidating and elaborating on my brief statement. One nitpick however, isn't that always the case ;). I can't find where a 'physical' interaction is necessary. The PH and SRD phrase it as "study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion". What constitutes careful study or interaction of some fashion? Ask your DM.

[Phelix-Mu]

More classically vague language about hugely important things. Brought to you by WotC.

[nyjastul69]

More classically vague language about hugely important things. Brought to you by WotC.

I agree that it is a vague statement. I also think that the designers were sometimes intentionally vague in order to give DM's some leeway in running their particular games. I'm not sure how the designers could have defined every single type of interaction or careful study. It would also have taken too much space for whatever value their definitions would hold. I find something like this in D&D to be a feature, not a bug.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Thank you for elucidating and elaborating on my brief statement. One nitpick however, isn't that always the case ;). I can't find where a 'physical' interaction is necessary. The PH and SRD phrase it as "study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion". What constitutes careful study or interaction of some fashion? Ask your DM.

A valid nit to pick. The salient point, however, is that simply seeing the illusion isn't adequate. Interaction, however you interpret it, needs to include some form of trying to affect the illusory object or creature or having it try to affect you beyond simply making noises in your general direction.

[Kraken]

Regardless, as long as your DM agrees with Kelb in general, illusions are simply incredible for battlefield control. For instance, with one action to cast minor image, you can take chunks of enemies out of the fight for a few rounds, basically turning one hard encounter into two easy encounters.

[Crake]

I believe in the phb under illusions in chapter 10 (magic), it defined "studying" an illusion as a full round action. Also, I echo the sentiment that interacting with an illusion doesnt necessitate physical interaction. Trying to talk to an illusion of a human should illicit a will save, since communication is interaction. There are of course some illusions that would require physical interaction, such as disguise self, or when the illusion in question is an object.

Note that your hand passing right through an illusion doesn't mean it's an auto-pass on the will save for "undeniable proof" that it is an illusion, because there are plenty of reasons why your hand might pass through an object. Incorporeal objects for example.

[Phelix-Mu]

I agree that it is a vague statement. I also think that the designers were sometimes intentionally vague in order to give DM's some leeway in running their particular games. I'm not sure how the designers could have defined every single type of interaction or careful study. It would also have taken too much space for whatever value their definitions would hold. I find something like this in D&D to be a feature, not a bug.

Assuming they were intentionally vague, I agree, a feature. Based on their tendency to be vague both when useful, and when very, very not useful, I'm not sure that it is a sensible assumption, though.

But I tend to look at the ruleset as a whole; it was clearly written by numerous people over a considerable span of time, then underwent piecemeal revision and playtesting.

My tendency to accept that, given some stupid RAW, all of the questionable RAW is also the result of stupid, is also, ironically, not logically consistent. DOH!

[nedz]

The problem is that many illusions, principally the Image line, are completely open ended. Tying them down with hard rules would break the concept behind the spells. There are many illusion spells which are tightly defined, Invisibility for example, but these do different jobs.

[Phelix-Mu]

The problem is that many illusions, principally the Image line, are completely open ended. Tying them down with hard rules would break the concept behind the spells. There are many illusion spells which are tightly defined, Invisibility for example, but these do different jobs.

No, I was not saying they all need to say "this spell does [something concrete]." I had intended to say that they should have been much more explicit about what exact behaviors qualify as triggering the save. Does physical contact count, even with something that can't be touched (like fog)? How about attempts to communicate (as an illusion of something that can communicate could just choose not to speak)? How about more detailed knowledge of the thing the illusion is of than the illusionist? How about less detailed knowledge (like the commoner that tries to touch the ghost, but doesn't actually know that ghosts are supposed to be incorporeal)?

I know they couldn't cover all cases, but some nice generic stuff about x or y, maybe a clarification in each spell.... Alas, I hold the game to an impossibly high standard, it seems.:smallwink: