D&D 1E How do you play an illusionist?

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Supporter
I did some digging and found where I got the file from, so a shout out to Jon Peterson for posting it.

Playing at the World

Ah! Shoulda known. I probably did see that, as I love that blog....

An article he submitted to Wild Hunt #19 gives the rationale for most of the changes in this 1977 version of the Illusionist class.

Interesting choice of words. Does this mean that it wasn't published? Peterson has access to the old zines, and I can't tell if that is from a submission, or if that is the publication.

Either way, it's definitely a better (and I'd say) and definitive OD&D illusionist.
I wish Gygax hadn't nerfed the class in AD&D. And, for that matter, while I understand why they went to specialist wizards, I still have a hankering for a separate illusionist class.

As I've already written, I fell for the illusionist right after seeing this-


 

log in or register to remove this ad

ilgatto

How inconvenient
(...)
An article he submitted to Wild Hunt #19 gives the rationale for most of the changes in this 1977 version of the Illusionist class.

Interesting choice of words. Does this mean that it wasn't published? Peterson has access to the old zines, and I can't tell if that is from a submission, or if that is the publication.
I was wondering the same thing. The document itself rather looks like a submission, what with the staples and all. The yellow bit looks a bit more like something that may have been in a zine, for it has a strong resemblance to what the pages in early issues of Alarums & Excursions looked like, colors galore and all that - bit of a color splay as it were.

Either way, it's definitely a better (and I'd say) and definitive OD&D illusionist.
I wish Gygax hadn't nerfed the class in AD&D. And, for that matter, while I understand why they went to specialist wizards, I still have a hankering for a separate illusionist class.
(...)
Yeah, a lot got lost in the 1E>2E transformation of many classes - whole classes even.

As far as Gygax's nerfing goes, I do believe it was usually done with good reason - or at least one he thought was a "good reason" at the time. I suppose he got confronted with all manner of, um..., extremes when D&D started to take off and that he felt he had to hit the brakes big time on many occasions. Much of his talk in the DMG points to his, IMHO.
Also, when he said things like "You the DM are the final arbiter", I do believe that he forgot to add "... as long as you have at least some sense and an understanding of a how good game of anything should be run". I once ran into some guys back in the..., some time ago who were boasting about how they "did the dungeon" on Harley Davidsons with engines running on orc blood and with scythes stuck to the sides (and called themselves "Death Dealer", obviously) and I can sort of imagine how this may well have raised at least one of Gygax's eyebrows.

And I think he did an extremely good job with the DMG, which to this day is still the first book I turn to when a question needs answering and sieges are laid.

So, while I take Gygax's word as canon, I do make exceptions for some of the people who actually contributed to the game in its earliest days, such as Robert Kuntz, Lenard Lakofka, and, to some extent, James Ward. Studying what these folks did and wrote often provides exceptionally fascinating insights into what Gygax did and why - the El Raja Key Archives, Liaisons Dangereuses, and Leomund's Tiny Hut in Dragon Magazine being prime examples.

And I made the same exception for Peter Aronson where the Illusionist is concerned, even if that meant that I had to raise the level of his Dreams spell quite considerably.

#Gwoin3Lives!
 

Whom here has played the 1st edition illusionist?
Never played it personally. I initially had no interest in it when 1E was current and neither did ANYBODY else I gamed with. Then I became a DM and still none of the players cared. Eventually one player tried one in a game I ran because I'd been commenting nobody ever HAD tried it. It was not a good experience for either of us and he quickly dropped the character and made a different one. Then 2E made them specialists which only made them LESS attractive to anyone as a concept...
Are there any ways to update this concept in a way that reflects the original 1st edition feel?
After literally decades of wrestling with it, my conclusion regarding the 1E illusionist is that their only real problem is the f'd up nature of the Phantasmal Force spell and the higher level versions of it (Improved PF, Spectral Force, Permanent Illusion, Programmed Illusion). It has no guidelines for its uses by a player or adjudication by a DM, so it can do anything, or be limited to doing nothing, or unpredictable and inconsistent results anywhere in between. However, once you FIX THAT, nothing else about the class is really a problem, other than perhaps it's still generally weaker in typical play than a magic-user. All their other spells are quite adequately defined in what their resulting illusions will and WON'T do and how they do it. 1E doesn't have specific rules for how ALL illusions work because illusion spells themselves describe HOW they work and what they are limited to accomplishing... all except Phatansmal Force which in practical terms has no rules at all.

Simply changing how that spell works (and thus all higher level versions of it as well), DEFINING what it can do and can't do and why, wiped away all the issues I EVER really had with the class. Those changes include PF not encroaching into territory covered by other higher level illusionist spells, especially shadow monsters and shadow magic. I did give them a few other minor tidbits to differentiate them from MU's in ways OTHER than just their available spells. Also, I came up with this to say to players about possibly playing illusionists; something that really should have been emphasized in the general description of what the class even is:

"Illusionists could be as potent at high levels as magic-users, but will never be able to compete with magic-users in terms of raw destruction. Only a foolish player would even try. The power of illusionists lies in using their spells with strategies and tactics of deception, confusion, misdirection, delay, obfuscation, concealment and disguise. They do still have damaging spells, but that is seldom going to be how they succeed. They are just not designed for plentiful infliction of hit point damage, and it should rarely, if ever, be an illusionists goal to gain victory by brute attrition."

What that means is that if you're going to create illusory monsters with an illusionist spell, then you should almost always be attempting to have the presence of those monsters accomplish some other goal than only inflicting massive damage upon as many enemies as possible. If those are the kinds of spells you want for your character, then ILLUSIONIST is the wrong freakin' choice of class and you'd best re-think your character pronto. Deception. Confusion. Misdirection. Delay. Obfuscation. Concealment. Disguise. That is what illusionist spells are overwhelmingly geared for.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top