[this continues by conversions of subclasses to the old Holmes Basic game. If you missed the intro, check here (includes the Paladin and Ranger). The Witch subclass is here. I get this isn't a terribly original line of work...]
I've blogged about the illusionist before; have even had a chance to play a couple in the last few years (prior to moving to Paraguay). Both characters (a gnome and a human) used the rules found in Labyrinth Lord's Advanced Edition Companion, itself a straight adaptation of the 1E subclass for B/X play. Neither experience was particularly satisfying...at least, not on the level of "yay, I finally get to play an illusionist!"
[as usual, this may have simply been due to ME, but...well, let me continue]
I had the chance to go back and read the original publication of the illusionist character class (penned in 1975 by Peter Aronson in the Strategic Review, vol. 1 issue 4), the basis for the class as it appears in the 1E PHB. And what do you know? It's a nice little write-up and fairly dissimilar from the magic-user (the spell list is a lot shorter, and the majority of its spells are very illusion specific). Not only does it have its own flavor (rather than that of a "specialist wizard") it has its own power, which is balanced by its profound lack of magic items (no rings, rods, portions, weapons, or miscellaneous items besides crystal balls, for example). However, considering the illusionist's highest level spells (5th) become available by the 9th level of experience, and these include the ability to use 2nd level MU spells and create spectres (wow!) from dead enemies, that's not a bad little trade-off. Gygax expanded the list over 7 spell levels (and 14 experience levels) and injected a lot of extraneous stuff (IMO) that just waters down the emphasis of the subclass.
So, for my Holmes write-up, I'm going to be using something closer to Aronson's original, but more focused (sorry, that means no create spectre spell), in an attempt to give the subclass its own flavor apart from Holmseian magic-users. Part 2 will have the actual spell list, perhaps with brief, Holmes-style descriptions. Here goes:
"Fear my mind." |
A magic-user must possess at least a 15 in both intelligence and dexterity to be an illusionist; they tend to be both brilliant and arrogant in their powers. While they may appear to have the trappings of a magic-user (spell books, wands, robes decorated with zodiacal signs) the truth is these, too, are illusions for none of it is required to work their magic. Illusionists know every spell of their repertoire; only their level of experience limits what they can create with their minds.
Level
|
1st
|
2nd
|
3rd
|
4th
|
5th
|
Minor Trickster
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
Trickster
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
Master Trickster
|
5
|
1
|
|
|
|
Cabalist
|
5
|
3
|
|
|
|
Visionist
|
5
|
4
|
1
|
|
|
Phantasmist
|
5
|
5
|
2
|
|
|
Apparitionist
|
5
|
5
|
3
|
1
|
|
Spellbinder
|
5
|
5
|
4
|
2
|
|
Illusionist
|
5
|
5
|
4
|
3
|
1
|
Master Illusionist
|
5
|
5
|
4
|
4
|
2
|
Mst. Illusionist, 11th
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
4
|
3
|
Mst. Illusionist, 12th
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
4
|
Illusionists may not use the spell scrolls, wands, staves, rods, or miscellaneous items that are normally available to magic-users, with the exception of crystal balls, and most magical items (including magic daggers) create a type of magical "resonance" that interferes with their own illusion magic. Using these items, or being under the effect of a magic potion, renders the illusionist unable to work their magic (potions that have an instant effect, like healing potions, do not hinder them). Illusionists may not scribe scrolls, nor engage in spell research. They may perform minor conjuring tricks and feats of legerdemain (card tricks, etc.) as thief of the same level picks pockets.
Wait...pick pockets covers sleight of hand? If only that had been in the rules cyclopedia.
ReplyDelete@ Sean:
DeleteIs this snark? I don't remember illusionists appearing in the RC.
Like this take on the Illusionist! Based on the description, I'd assume that any wands or staves they did carry would be just props, correct?
ReplyDeleteAlso, props for using the 2e depiction of the class; brings me back to the first time I flipped through that Player's Handbook, gazing in wonder at the illustrations.
@ Fuzzy:
DeleteAre you talking about the illustration? I don't remember this one being in my 2E PHB.
'Course I DID sell that book some years ago...
As for the props...it's just flavor text, man. If they DO carry wands or whatnot, even magical ones, they're certainly no better than props, seeing as how illusionists can't work 'em.
@JB:
DeleteYou probably had the original, circa-1989 printing of the 2E PHB. The later printings from 1995 onwards added a bunch of new illustrations, including this one; while most of the class illustrations looked ridiculous (almost every one has a gigantic handlebar mustache!), this and the bard always stood out to me for some reason.
Huh...probably. I certainly preferred this image from the selection I pulled with a google for "illusionist."
Delete