Illusionary Post

I am at the point now where I think I have probably spent more time working through the illusionist class than Gary Gygax ever did.

[oh, hello! What's this? Well, it's NOT the thing(s) I've been working on the last couple weeks. Sometimes, when you hit a wall writing...which I have...you need to step sideways to get back on track. Another D&D post for the fun of it]

Once upon a time, I spent a whole LOT o' time writing about the illusionist...mm, here and here and here. Good stuff (there's also this bit about color spray and gnomes...for the interested)). Worth a read, I suppose. But that was all waaay back before I took up the AD&D sword again; I was still futzing around with OD&D in those days, rather than simply playing the game. Tinkering. The silly mental exercises we do rather than, you know, doing the real work (i.e. world building and running). 

Here's a choice quote from my most recently blogged thoughts on the illusionist (post-return to AD&D):

As reworked by Gygax for the AD&D system, the spell list for the class is...poor. ...the class, unfortunately, needs a lot of "clean-up."

But how can I say that, when I haven't actually seen a player run and develop an illusionist character over a long-term campaign? How do I know that the class...as printed in the PHB...wasn't reworked specifically due to extensive play-testing and is, in fact, the perfect representation of the class?

Don't really know HOW I'd run them now, because no one wants to play them in my campaign. I do have extensive spell list revisions stored somewhere on my laptop...I'd be tempted to break those out. But probably, I'd just start with the standard rules (if someone wanted to play an illusionist)....

In other words, I punted on the matter.  What I have found...over and over again...is that with regard to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, there is very little that needs to be changed to improve the game's overall effectiveness. It functions, and functions well, within the parameters of the rule system as designed.  We argue and critique and hypothesize and debate but when played with the intention of, you know, "playing D&D"...when played intentionally the game works just fine. Most of the adjustments I've made...or proposed...over the years either ended up falling away (i.e. I moved back to the Rules As Written), or...in the case of B/X and OD&D games...were simply moving the system towards 1E. And now I play 1E. That's half the battle right there.

So then, why am I poking at the illusionist?  Because the class IS still a bit of a mess. 'But JB! You just said...' Yeah, yeah, I know what I just said. Give me a minute.

The most recent CAG podcast focused squarely on the 1st edition illusionist class: a very good discussion, and I found myself in agreement with nearly all of it. Oh, some of my stronger quibbles have to do with the phantasmal forces spell, and the implication that nerfing it (for example, not allowing it to do real, actual damage) is akin to restricting the fighter to only doing subdual damage...but regardless of which side you land upon that particular debate, the major point (we do not want to include a class no one wants to play) is valid, and is one requiring some examination.

So: let's talk about it. Is the illusionist a class worth having in the game? Is is a class worth playing?

As a concept, I think the class is fine...more than fine, actually. It fills a very interesting niche, much the same way that the druid fills a niche. The cleric is the high priest archetype (well, at the higher levels, of course. To start, the cleric is quite a bit farther down the food chain of the church hierarchy). But whether your cleric is modeled on the medieval Christian church or the ancient temples priests of Rome, regardless this is the pomp and ritual and institutionalized religion with all its sacred trappings, bells, and whistles...er, candles. 

And the druid is not of that: they represent the more earthy, shamanic traditions, communing with Mother Earth, the animals, the base elements of nature. That is a great niche...with a great suite of special abilities!...that is somewhat like a cleric (hey, there's 'worship' going on!) but is very, very different. A nice change of pace.

The illusionist is to the magic-user what the druid is to the cleric...a very different type of spell-caster, one who has taken a different road when it comes to weaving magic. While the magic-user seeks to alter and change reality, bending it to his/her will, the illusionist says "to hell with reality! I can just bend the mind and the perception of what reality is."  Which is awesome. It's a different approach to using magic...but one that requires a certain type of player ingenuity to make function. It is a far more subtle type of character to play: yes, a player does have to think in terms of trickery to use their magic with effective results, because the illusionist doesn't have the same direct powers as the MU does with spells like burning hands or knock. 

Mostly, that is. As EOTB points out in the aforementioned podcast, one can play an illusionist as just a pocket magic-user, with a selection of simple, direct magics: spells like color spray, wall of fog, invisibility, blindness, etc. don't require any heavy mental lifting to use, no negotiation with the DM regarding an opponent's "disbelief" and possible saving throw. Unlike the various phantasm spells, these are simple, direct applications that...if a player chooses to stick to 'em...result in a character that appears (mostly) like any other magic-user, albeit one with a different bag of tricks.

To the main issue: it's not the concept that's the problem, it's the spells on the illusionist's list that fail to "punch their weight," especially as the illusionist climbs higher in level. Sure, it's nice to get phantasmal forces as a 1st level spell and maze as a 5th level, but other spells are simply lame in comparison to the magic's gained by an MU of similar x.p. total. And do I want every illusionist in the game to be pocketing the exact same selection of "most effective" spells? No, I do not.

SO, in order for the class to be viable for one's game...something VERY desirable to me, given the delightful way the class fills its particular niche...the illusionist must be viable over the long-term, i.e. not just for the first five or six levels of play. And that means correcting Gygax's corrections to the original (Pete Aronson) spell list.

[by the way: in preparation for this task, I did take the opportunity to review all the "new" illusionist spells presented in the Unearthed Arcana. In general, I hate them all with (perhaps) a single exception (phantom steed). To me, all these new spells are FILLER, most more-or-less duplicating other spell effects (both illusionist and otherwise) in a slightly more specific fashion. These could be good ideas for illusionists wanting to pursue magical research, but I certainly wouldn't make any of them "standard"]

Here, then, is how I'd curate the illusionist spells; adjustments have been made by comparing relative x.p. values at which a spell is gained compared to the spells granted to spell-users of the same x.p. total in other classes, with some caveats (illusions are, for example, easier to master). In many cases, defaulting back to the original Aronson spell lists were appropriate. I've also added one or two new spells of my own:

1st Level (14): audible glamer, change self, color spray, dancing lights, darkness, detect illusion, detect invisible, gaze reflection, hypnotism, light, mirror image, phantasmal image, ventriloquism, wall of fog

2nd Level (12): blindness, blur, deafness, detect magic, dispel illusion, fog, hypnotic pattern, improved phantasm, invisibility, magic mouth, misdirection, rope trick

3rd Level (12): color bomb*, continual darkness, continual light, dispel exhaustion, fear, hallucinatory terrain, illusionary script, invisibility 10' radius, non-detection, paralyzation, spectral force, suggestion

4th Level (10): confusion, dreams*, emotion, improved invisibility, massmorph, minor creation, phantasmal killer, phantom steed**, shadow door, shadow monsters

5th Level (10): chaos, demi-shadow monsters, major creation, phantoms*, programmed illusion, projected image, shadow jump***, shadow magic, summon shadows, veil

6th Level (8): conjure animals, demi-shadow magic, mass suggestion, maze, permanent illusion, prismatic spray, shades, true sight

7th Level (6): alter reality, astral spell, phantom prison****, prismatic wall, spectral life****, vision

*  Spell description can be found in Aronson's original manuscript

** As per Unearthed Arcana (I feel so dirty)

*** As transport via plants (druid spell) but with shadows.

**** Spells of my own design: the former is adapted from my (Holmes) spell mind warp, the latter is adapted from Aronson's create specters (the original version, not the version appearing in The Strategic Review)

In my campaign, illusionists begin with three spells, randomly determined, each of which may be cast once per day (so all illusionists know/cast a number of spells as listed in the PHB plus two first level spells). To determine starting spells, roll 1d12; however, an illusionist will only be taught audible glamer OR ventriloquism (not both) and will only be taught light OR darkness (not both) before starting their career. 

There are no reversible illusionist spells. Illusionists automatically read illusionist magic.

My Magic (Part 3)

Not much time to blog today (plus, I'd like to get to some other subjects...like the new Dungeons & Dragons film). But, for the sake of completeness, I wanted to add one more installment to this series. I'll keep it short.

Druids. Illusionists. Bards.

The last time a player ran an illusionist in one of my campaigns, I was (maybe) 14 years old. Maybe. I can't even recall any gnome multi-class types. Just a single illusionist...a pre-gen created specifically to try running D1: Descent into the Depths of the Earth.

I have never had a player character druid in any campaign I've run. Ever.

I have an (adult) friend, who really wants to join my game, and wants to play a druid. Unfortunately, he resides on Camano Island and isn't exactly mobile, which means the only way we'd be able to play is via the Zoom or something...which I am loathe to do for a number of reasons. Still, there remains the possibility that I'll see a 1st level druid in my campaign at some point in the near future.

But I have had time to think about it, and my gut reaction is to simply leave druids exactly as written in the PHB. Yes, they must memorize (or "pray for") spells at the beginning of the day, unlike my clerics; however, this "memorization" represents the druid preparing their mistletoe and whatnot (via shamanic/ritual magic) in anticipation of the coming day's events. 

Besides which: I've never seen a druid in my game (didn't I just say that?). So why should I go about "fixing" something that may work perfectly fine?

Illusionists are a...slightly...different matter. I've written extensively about my love for the illusionist class as both a concept AND as originally imagined/designed for the OD&D game by Peter Aronson. As reworked by Gygax for the AD&D system, the spell list for the class is...poor (see prior blog posts here and here, and specific discussions on color spray and phantasmal force). The class, unfortunately, needs a lot of "clean-up."

But how can I say that, when I haven't actually seen a player run and develop an illusionist character over a long-term campaign? How do I know that the class...as printed in the PHB...wasn't reworked specifically due to extensive play-testing and is, in fact, the perfect representation of the class?

How indeed.

I would love to play an illusionist character...if I were playing in the campaign of a DM that I respect and trust. Say, someone like me. I have played illusionists before...on two occasions with different DMs. Both times they were using the Advanced Labyrinth Lord rules (which just means B/X with some AD&D adaptations). Neither game lasted more than a single session, and the character had little opportunity to "stretch its legs." But, then, neither of those games was what I'd call "open worlds;" just dungeons that we were stuck in. You know...typical Basic level play.

[I'm so tired of basic play]

SO...illusionists. Don't really know HOW I'd run them now, because no one wants to play them in my campaign. I do have extensive spell list revisions stored somewhere on my laptop...I'd be tempted to break those out. But probably, I'd just start with the standard rules (if someone wanted to play an illusionist). Probably tack on the same house rules I use for magic-users. Probably. There's a part of me that likes the idea of an illusionist creating more than one phantasmal image in a day...so long as it's not the same image. 

The testing is all in the playing.

And as for bards: welp, since I started my new campaign I haven't seen any of those yet, either...although Diego keeps saying he'd like to play one; he just keeps missing on the ability scores needed. 

Oh, right, forgot to mention: I scrapped the whole single-class bard idea, I posted a while back. The fact is, I've played and run MANY 1st edition bards over the years (eight that I can think of off the top of my head, and not counting pre-gens like Olaf Peacock in Dwellers of the Forbidden City) and, in my experience, the class works fine as written. Would I prefer their magic is a little more "bardic" in nature, rather than druidic? Sure. And perhaps I'll do something about that one day. Like, the next time a PC actually acquires a 1st level bard in my campaign (after first progressing through fighter and thief classes). Until then, I'm not terribly worried about it.

Which, by the by, is also my attitude towards high level rangers and paladins (both of whom receive some spell-casting ability). I've seen a lot of high level fighters over the years; I can't recall ever seeing a ranger over 7th level or a paladin over 3rd. SO...unless and until I do, I'll just run these characters By The Book. 

That's all folks.

: )

Finding the Gnome

I am absurdly happy this morning (despite little annoyances) because, as of about 9:30am, I finally, finally have a decent write-up of the illusionist class.

Hmm. Actually, "write-up" is a phrase too far...I have the nuts-n-bolts figured out (including spell lists) and scribbled on a spreadsheet. Sometime in the next couple-few days I'll get the chance to write the class up (hope-hope). But the point is, I've got the mechanics nailed down, especially the aforementioned spell lists which was a major sticking point. Turns out that going back to OD&D was the (as with many things) the cureall for what ails me: building from the ground up is so much smoother (even if it's time-consuming) when you start your construction on the foundation stone.

But we'll address Ye Old Illusionist in another post...this one is about a (slightly) related subject: the gnome.

As they appear in OD&D

I haven't blogged about gnomes much at all over the years. They're just not...well, just not a subject that's come up. They're not a class in B/X (though I included one in The Complete B/X Adventurer) and even back in my AD&D years, I don't remember seeing all that many.

Scratch that, I don't remember seeing ANY.  As a DM, I probably wrote one up as an NPC (I did that at one time or another with most all of the various class/races), but I'm sure it never saw play at the table. And if I had to guess, we neglected the gnome mostly because A) the racial level limits prevented high level advancement, and B) there was a general lack of enthusiasm for illusionists in our circle (and the ability to multi-class as an illusionist is one of the gnome's strongest recommendations). Personally, I've played one or two in Advanced Labyrinth Lord games (generally, assassin/illusionists) but these were all one-off games, not long term campaign play.

So let's talk about the gnome now...prior to starting up an OD&D campaign, I was deconstructing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons with the thought of creating an AD&D campaign. As such (and since then) I have done a LOT of reading/research of the OD&D books, pre-'78 copies of The Dragon, and old records of The Strategic Review (the periodical/magazine that directly preceded The Dragon). For most of AD&D rules, I can find precursors in these older texts...as one would expect, given that AD&D was, by and large, a reorganizing of the complete OD&D material into a readily usable (and uniform) format.

The gnome, however, is not present.

At least not as a player character. The "gnome" has been around as long as CHAINMAIL, where it appears as part of the entry for dwarves:

DWARVES (and Gnomes): Because their natural habitat is deep under the ground, these stout folk operate equally well day or night. Although they are no threat to the larger creatures, Trolls, Ogres, and Giants find them hard to catch because of their small size, so county one-half normal kills when Dwarves and Gnomes fight with them, for either attacks upon the Dwarves and Gnomes or returns...Goblins and Kobolds are their natural (and hated) enemies, and Dwarves (Gnomes) will attack Goblins (Kobolds) before any other enemies in sight...However, Dwarves and Gnomes will not have to roll an "obedience die" (as do Knights) to follow orders...

They are listed on the same line of the "Fantasy Reference Table" and they have the exact same move, charge, special abilities, attack, and defend ratings. There is NO difference between the two, and they are both listed on the side of Law.

In Men & Magic (OD&D book 1), the section on dwarves makes no reference to gnomes, except with regard to languages in which the text states dwarves speak Gnome, Kobold, and Goblin (interesting it does not reference them speaking their own Dwarvish language...unlike the entry for Elves). The reference for the race in the alignment list shows them as Dwarves/Gnomes (rather than two separate entries); the only other "double species" so listed is Goblins/Kobolds.

In Monsters & Treasures (OD&D book 2) the entry for gnomes IS separate from the dwarves and says only the following:

GNOMES: Slightly smaller than Dwarves, and with longer beards, these creatures usually inhabit the hills and lowland burrows as opposed to the mountainous homes which Dwarves choose. They are more reclusive than their cousins, but in all other respects resemble Dwarves.

Their lines in the Monster Reference chart are nearly identical, mainly differing in treasure type and lair percentage.

The Greyhawk supplement is the first time OD&D offers a physical description of the dwarf character  type and here gnomes ARE referenced, stating:

Dwarves are about four feet tall, stocky of build, weigh 150 pounds, shoulders very broad, their skin a ruddy tan, brown or gray, and are of various types (hill, mountain, or burrowers) (such as gnomes).

Greyhawk makes no reference to using gnomes as a player character, nor do any of the later supplements. Neither do I find any reference to gnomes as player characters in The Strategic Review and early (pre-AD&D) issues of The Dragon magazine. Their sudden appearance as a playable race in the AD&D PHB is slightly strange...unless one considers they were being used as such all along.

Look: in OD&D, monsters (other than humans found in dungeons) do not have "levels of experience." Only player characters (or those with the potential to be player characters: men, elves, etc.) have levels. You'll find no group of goblins or lizard men containing a 5th level leader for groups over 50 or 200 or whatever. Liches (appearing in Greyhawk) are a slight exception as they were a high level Magic-User "in life;" the presumption is that now, as a monster, they no longer adventure nor advance in level. Tritons use spells "commensurate with their hit dice," though not mapping on an equal basis (5-7 hit dice mapping to 2nd-4th level ability) and hit dice are based on size and strength, not necessarily experience gained (some tritons are just born bigger, better, and stronger).

1977 Monster Manual

But gnomes, as stated "in all other respects [besides reclusiveness] resemble dwarves." And dwarves do have character classes: one "above average fighter" (of various levels) for every 40 dwarves appearing. Thus, gnomes, too, would have above average fighters of various levels. This is born out in the 1977 Monster Manual (released before the original Players Handbook) which shows gnomes encountered in groups of more than forty having fighter types up to 6th level (normal dwarf maximum per OD&D) and clerics up to 7th (again, normal dwarf maximum for NPC clerics, per Greyhawk). Thus, other than size (1' shorter, per the MM) gnomes appear to correspond in all aspects to their dwarf "cousins."

For me, this is enough to allow a player to claim their OD&D "dwarf" character is, in fact, a gnome...that gnomes are simply a smaller variation of the dwarf species. As I use the increased level limits found in Greyhawk (17 strength dwarves may progress to 7th level and 18 strength dwarves to 8th level), I would limit any such character to a maximum of 16 strength, seeing as how there doesn't appear to be gnomes over the 6th level fighting experience. Easy-peasy.

So then...from whence comes the idea of gnome illusionists?

That's an even more interesting quandary (at least for those who, like me, enjoy this type of pseudo-research). Dwarves are notoriously non-magical in the early editions of the game; they even have a higher resistance to magic than other character types (as do halflings) perhaps as a justification for their lack of wizards...despite raising the sticky question of who it is manufacturing all these dwarven warhammers +3?

My initial thought was that this was a svirfneblin thing. The "deep gnome" race, introduced by Gygax in his classic adventure Shrine of the Kuo-Toa is as notorious in its magic abilities as dwarves are in their absence. Like the Drow, the svirfnebli possess a number of innate spell abilities (summoning earth elementals?!), magical resistance, and enchanted accoutrements that make them inappropriate as player characters (*AHEM*), and I reasoned that perhaps the idea for gnomes as a magic-using (or, rather, illusion using) race might have germinated with this unique adventure.

A little cheap research, however, turns up the fact that Gygax both D1 and D2 after completing the AD&D Players Handbook, as a way of blowing off some steam. Gnomes already had their illusionist capabilities by then, and the svirneblin was simply a suped-up version of the gnome.

So then...what? Peter Aronson's illusionist class first appears in The Strategic Review #4 and neither the original article, nor the class "update" in The Dragon #1 make any remarks about dwarves or gnomes. In fact, no remarks are made regarding ANY racial restrictions for the class, though Aronson's (unpublished) notes clearly state "Where not otherwise specified, they are as [Magic-Users]." 

[a DM going by that statement might be inclined to allow the class to be played by both elves and half-elves, actually]

So what's the deal? Where does the idea come from? Who's to blame/responsible? There are no nonhuman deities in Supplement IV (Gods, Demi-Gods, and Heroes) that might show a "divine influence" on the species. So somehow we went from a short, burrowing variation on dwarves to the tricky illusionist types found from the PHB on to the present. What's the deal?

As near as I can tell, the first (and only) reference to gnomes having any magical ability comes from the original Monster Manual. For the most part, the entry for gnomes transcribes all the same OD&D material found in the original texts pertaining to dwarves (with some elaboration)...except for a single, additional sentence in the paragraph on special abilities:

"It is rumored that there exists gnomes with magical abilities up to 4th level, but this has not been proved."

It is rumored? Um, okay...where? When? By whom?

Here's what I think: structurally, mechanically, gnomes were no different from dwarves. The main differences between the two were size, temperament, and habitat, all things (more or less) related to each other (hills are smaller than mountains, thus gnomes are smaller than dwarves; hills are easier reached by humans, so gnomes must be more reclusive in nature to prevent their proliferation in the "realms of man").  However, to add variety, gnomes must be distinguishable from dwarves, and the distinct mechanic, from a dungeon-delving perspective, is their lack of size...thus, a lack of strength, and corresponding lack of fighting ability (or potential fighting ability) compared to their larger cousins.

But who wants to play a small, weak dwarf? Not many folks. The solution, then, is to give them some magical ability...something conspicuously absent from dwarf player characters. Of course, you can't give them straight magic-user abilities...that steps on the toes of the thing that makes elves (and half-elves) special. And clerical spells? No...Clerics are the purview of human characters (except for NPCs) as are druids, the "neutral option" when it comes to human magic (as outlined in Eldritch Wizardry).

So illusionists, the only new magical option not addressed in the OD&D books. When the gnome is made into its own separate racial option in AD&D (as opposed to a variation of dwarf), illusionist ends up assigned to the species as a possible class option. And just to keep it really special, no other race (besides humans) even has the option of illusionist as a career.

The OD&D version...well, my OD&D version...would allow progression a little higher than 4th, however. 6th gives the character to access those 3rd level spells that really help a "reclusive" gnome community to hide in plain sight (nondetection, hallucinatory terrain), as well as drive away nosy human neighbors (fear, confusion). Since I'm using Aronson's original experience progression chart (as published in The Strategic Review), I'd stop them short of 8th level ability: no first level MU spells, no shadow monsters or improved invisibility (sorry gnome backstabbers). Call it 6th level base, 7th maximum for gnomes of 17+ intelligence.

All right...that's enough gnome talk for the day. Though I will mention (perhaps to discuss later) that there are absolutely no gnome thieves (nor multi-class thieves) mentioned in the 1E Monster Manual's description of the gnome race. For that matter, there is no mention of thieves (or multi-class thieves) in the descriptions of dwarves, elves, or even halflings. Now this I find extremely interesting.

But I'll write about that later.

Phantasmal Image

One of the reasons I started a Patreon for this blog was to have money to subscribe to other folks' Patreon projects...and my devious plan has worked out quite well (thank you to all my supporters!). One of the subscriptions I'm funding at the moment is Alexis Smolensk's "The Higher Path" blog, and I've found his thoughts well worth the (small) price of admission. Yesterday, he wrote up several of his own thoughts on illusionist spells, riffing a bit on my own recent posts. Since I know not all of my readers subscribe to Alexis's stuff, I want to excerpt from his post, as it's pertinent to today's posting:

Two fundamental problems surrounding the existence of illusion in early D&D (which has more or less continued to poison the design) would be the dual fuzzy mechanics of "create your own illusion" and "disbelief." I can recall, all the way back to high school, the habit of players to immediately rush to, "I create a huge fire-breathing dragon with my 1st level illusionist spell, phantasmal force; do they disbelieve?"  

In other people's worlds, this was treated first by a DM's roll, to see if they disbelieve; then, a roll to see if the disbelief was successful. Statistically, this gives two chances for the huge dragon to be successful. If half the victims believe, and then half the disbelievers fail, then the dragon kills 3/4 of the onlookers. I must tell you, the way the rules are written in the DMG and Players' Handbook, this interpretation is "reasonable." Why wouldn't the 1st level illusionist create a fire breathing dragon? Why would you create anything else?  

In my world, disbelief was automatic. I would argue that even if we lived in a world with real fire breathing dragons, the sudden appearance of one, including one that was REAL, would be utter disbelief. We as human beings are built that way...  

And for this, I was shouted at and called vicious names for being unreasonable. To my mind, to make the spell work ~ to make any of the illusions work ~ they had to lack any possibility of being unlikely or impossible. Like, say, the illusion of me throwing a bag of gold coins towards the enemy, to draw them out to where they could be shot through with arrows by the party's fighters. Or creating an apparent ledge for the enemy to back onto, or a rope bridge crossing a river ... which could be fallen through, killing the victim.  

But when I asked my players to invent believable illusions, I discovered as a DM that players are not very creative in this way. They can only see dragons....

I can empathize with his point of view...I've had similar experiences myself. Smolensk's solution has been to remove phantasmal force from his game and replace it with more specific, practical, and easily adjudicated spells like phantasmal feature and phantasmal figure...this I find quite reasonable, though I might quibble over the details.

One of the problems with the original phantasmal force is that it tries to do too many things with a single spell. Fans of fantasy fiction, as I'd guess the vast majority of D&D players are, have experienced the concept of illusions in a myriad of different ways, and have formulated an idea of what an illusionist is based on those experiences. But in fiction (regardless of type) illusions are used like any other tool of the fiction creator: to further plot, to explore character, and/or (in the case of a visual medium like comics and film) to "astound and amaze."

Dungeons & Dragons isn't fiction...it's a game, something meant to be experienced. And illusions, like any other spell or aspect of character ability, must have practical applications. However, because our touchstone for understanding is solely based on fiction, it is a challenge for most of us to employ illusions. Most of us, I believe, are used to using methods other than deception to achieve our ends.

[that is to say, other aspects of D&D have analogies to real world experience. We have used "protective gear" in real life...whether it be a hard hat, seatbelt, or sports equipment...and understand how armor can be used to save our lives. Some of us have had actual fights, but all of us have used tools in some application of force to accomplish our objectives, be it pounding a nail or cutting a steak. We understand that flying...in the real world...can be accomplished only by those who are fortunate to have the means (money and/or training) to do so, but we can all observe birds taking wing to fly from one tree branch to a telephone wire, and can vividly imagine ourselves doing the same with a magic carpet or broom. And most of us have experienced some sort of invisibility...if only the kind that comes from being anonymous in a crowd of strangers at a movie theater or event...and can visualize how one might cross a room unnoticed, so long as we don't boldly interact with the individuals present]

Phantasmal force exists to allow the model a particular type of magic found in fiction...an ICONIC form of magic and, perhaps, the most basic form. In some fictions, ALL magic is illusional: it creates nothing real, creates no lasting change, affects nothing but tricking the minds and senses of its observers. This, of course, is not the case with the Dungeons & Dragons game, where most magic is very, very real to the characters: fireballs and healings and transformations (from polymorph to petrification). And yet we include illusions in the game because they ARE iconic to the fantasy genre, and D&D is nothing if not a kitchen sink approach to fantasy, welcoming every bit of myth, legend, pulp novel, and celluloid. We see the creation of illusions in film and literature for specific purposes and think it should be included in the game (it's fantasy after all) and we create a catchall spell that will create "vivid illusions of nearly anything the user envisions."

[that's Gygax's quote, BTW, from OD&D, volume 1]

Hologram

Why shouldn't the caster create the biggest, baddest monster she can think of? Why shouldn't she create an illusion of fire raining from the heavens, or of the earth cracking open beneath her opponent's feet, or of the lead orc tripping a trap that drops a thousand tons of stone on him and his compatriots? Why shouldn't an illusionist push the boundaries of whatever is the most practical application of the spell? This isn't fiction...it's a game. Players are trying to use their tools in an expedient manner.

And rather than take a step back and rethink things, the designers allow the spell to stand as written (as a catchall for anything displayed in fiction) and instead attempt to rein it in with limitations: the illusion must fit within an area. The illusion cannot be struck in combat. The illusion must be believed. Etc. Or even more complex, we start implementing distinctions like "figments" versus "phantasms," re-defining how an illusion operates on targets INSTEAD OF simply re-defining the limits of what can be created.

In my opinion, Phantasmal force is too broad of a spell and, thus, too prone to abuse and (as a result) argument and distraction from the game.

Look at audible glamer...as an auditory illusion it produces a single type of sound, whose maximum volume is determined by the caster's level of experience. Unlike phantasmal force, it does not require concentration...but then the noises are indistinct (you can create the sound of shouting or talking, but no actual words, just hubbub). For me, this gives some good parameters for a rewrite of the spell: I'd call it phantasmal image.

Phantasmal image produces a static, visual illusion. The volume of illusion produced is determined by caster level, topping out (like audible glamer) around "dragon size." Because it is a specific visual image conceived by the caster, the illusion remains in existence only so long as the caster concentrates. Deliberately touching the image immediately causes the spell to vanish; the image may be used to mask an existing, real feature.

Examples of the phantasmal image could include: a chest of gold, a corpse, a bridge over a chasm, an arrow stuck in a (real) tree attached to a note, a wall blocking an open corridor, or a crack or pit in the floor. It could mask an existing bridge (making it appear dilapidated, broken, or missing), it can make a door simply seem to be continuous wall, or can make a chest of treasure appear to be empty (note that unlike the 2nd level invisibility spell, such "deleting" of features only effects static targets, and are dispelled by touch or when a caster ceases concentration).  Phantasmal image cannot be used to create dynamic (i.e. moving) images: no attacking mobs, no flying dragons, no rain of arrows, no crackling bonfires, etc.

It is my opinion that this defining of the limits of the spell actually provides MORE possible uses for such magic. And because of its limitations (the need to be static, dispelling by touch, etc.) there is no need to muck around with saving throws or issues of "disbelief:" the spell creates a phantom image that disappears if someone interacts with it. Player characters that disbelieve a pool of green slime are free to put their foot in it and test their theory...more cautious individuals might simply look for another way around the obstacle.

All right, more to come. Have a happy Valentine's Day, people. Don't say I don't love you all!
: )

Color Spray

"Illusionist Week" continues. Hell, it might turn into "Illusionist Month." Sorry about that...I'll try to get the latest Zenopus update posted sometime this weekend...the kids aren't dead yet!

[mmm...maybe should have wrote *SPOILER*]

Just starting up from yesterday's cricket-worthy post, I decided that if I was going to rewrite the illusionist spell list I need to have some ideas of how I want to organize and structure it. There are, after all, some basic patterns that are readily apparent (spells based on color and light, spells that conjure "shadow stuff" from some demi-plane, spells that screw with a target's mind, etc.) and categorizing spells by type is something that will help with the re-organization of the list in a sensible manner. Sensible to me anyway.

SO...making a "deep dive" means doing some research and (in this case) started with reading the AD&D illusionist spell list. First up, audible glamer...not bad, though the whole "cast in conjunction with phantasmal force" is problematic (spell-casters don't cast spells "in conjunction"...unless Gygax meant "in conjunction with another illusionist" which, wow, TWO illusionists in the same party? That's got to be more rare than a pair of rangers...). I like the rough volume guidelines, though I'd probably cap it at "dragon level" (i.e. 24 men)...by my reckoning that would be 6th level, and any such illusionist would have access to the spell fear (what's more scary than a roaring dragon?). I don't want a spell to get into the range where eardrums start bleeding or cellular tissue begins to liquify.

Let's see...after that we have change self, a simple visual illusion and fine as written. Then we have the iconic color spray, okay, and...and...

WTF.

Sweet Christmas, what the hell is this mess?

I'm not even going to bother quoting it here, because it's nonsensical. And, no, I'm definitely not the first person to notice it. The fact that I'm only noticing it NOW gives you an idea of how often I've run players with illusionist characters (some number less than two). I myself have run illusionists on multiple occasions but, given the choice, I've always taken phantasmal force as my first spell (dude...illusionist!) probably followed by hypnotism or wall of fog, maybe even change self. Some players might prefer a straightforward attack spell, but...well, that's not how I roll when I'm wearing the illusionist hat.

Which is all a long way of poorly justifying how I'm reading a book I've owned since 5th grade and never noticed that color spray spends a bunch of time defining what it does to creatures of higher level/HD than the caster while simultaneously limiting the effect to the level of the caster. Jeez Louise.

Checking other editions, I see that 2E "fixed" the spell by deleting the level cap. Which results in a power word equivalent spell that effects multiple creatures regardless of hit point value for a 1st level spell slot (creatures do get a save if they are over 6th level). I can see why it became popular. Oh, 2E...there are reasons I don't play you.

Once again, I see I need to go back to the source material: Peter Aronson. Aronson added this spell to the back end of the 1st level illusionist list for the 1976 Dragon #1 article that I mentioned in the earlier post. It's messily written...perhaps the reason why Gygax got "confused" in his editing...but let me take a shot at parsing it out (this is not a direct quote...it's my paraphrase):

Color spray effects 1D6 levels (HD) of opponents at a range of 24". The caster receives a bonus to the die roll of +1 for every five levels after 2nd (so +1 at 7th, +2 at 12th, etc.); however, the final result may not exceed six. If multiple targets are within range, randomly determine the order in which they are affected, assigning levels of effect (from the total effect rolled) until all levels have been expended. Partial assignment of spell effect is possible, and will impact whether or not the target receives a saving throw, as follows:

Level of effect equals creature's HD: no save
Level of effect exceeds HD/level by one: normal save
Level of effect exceeds HD/level by two: save at +2
Level of effect exceeds HD/level by three: save at +4
Level of effect exceeds HD/level by four: save at +6
Level of effect exceeds HD/level by five: save at +8

Color spray does not affect targets whose hit dice or level exceed six. Affected characters are rendered "unconscious through confusion." There is no other effect of the spell. 

Example: a 10th level illusionist casts the spell at a group of 7 orcs and 1 troll. She rolls 1D6 to see the effect and adds +1 because of her high level. She rolls a "6" which is the maximum result she can achieve (despite her level, the result does not increase to seven). As there are eight possible targets that may be affected the DM rolls to see the particular targets and order in which they are affected: the result indicates orc #1, orc #3, orc #5, and then the troll (since three levels of spell effect were expended on the first three orcs, the last three levels are sucked up by the 6 hit die troll). The first three orcs are knocked unconscious (no save); the troll receives a save versus spells with a +4 bonus to resist being rendered senseless. If five orcs had been struck prior to the troll, the troll's save would have been at +8 (the maximum possible bonus). If the troll had been struck first, it would have received no saving throw; however, none of the orcs would have been affected. If the orcs had been traveling with a balrog instead of a troll, only orcs would have been affected by the spell as the balrog's HD exceeds six.

In reviewing the original version of the color spray spell, it appears to me that Aronson was offering up an "illusionist flavor" version of the classic magic-user spell sleep. It shares several characteristics with the spell including level (1st), range (24"), effect (knocking creatures unconscious), and the ability to impact multiple creatures without giving a saving throw. Also like sleep, color spray's effectiveness is limited by the targets' hit dice/level: sleep only affects multiple creatures at HD 3 or fewer (and only a single HD 4 target), while color spray affects creatures up to HD 6 at the cost of impacting far fewer "lesser" beings.

That is how I interpret the intention of the spell. Would you trade the ability to knock out more than six goblins or orcs for the chance to knock out a single minotaur or troll (or the possibility of TWO ogres?)? To me, that's a fair choice to offer to a player...though an Aronson illusionist of at least 9th level could have her cake and eat it, too (thanks to the option of choosing a 1st level magic-user spell...in this case, sleep...with a 4th level spell selection).

Still, as I wrote previously, I don't mind a little overlap in spell effect between two different types of caster, so long as it differs a bit in style and ties in with the class's overall "theme." A "sheet of bright conflicting colors" that renders a target unconscious "through confusion" is neat enough, though this gets nerfed with the 2E admonition that "blind or unseeing creatures are not affected by this spell."

[I lay the blame for this particular wonkiness (which is sure to lead to endless dispute about whether or not a creature with no eyeballs...like a skeleton...can "see") at Gygax's interpretation of the spray as some sort of laser light show that has a blinding affect, rather than a confusion attack with a visual component]

*ahem* As I was saying...a little overlap, with modification/variation, is fine and dandy, but the designer never intended the spell to be something that could be used to take down a mindflayer or greater demon. Should it be able to blind or stun a large creature (like a roc or a tyrannosaurus)? Maybe? But when you can accomplish the same feat with the spell light at a greater duration and with additional utility, do you really need it?

If you want to go strictly By The Book...well, you can't, because the spell as written is nonsensical. Or, rather, you can read it literally, in which case the blinding and stunning abilities never take effect (because it never affects creatures of greater HD than the caster's level). And yet, with a literal BTB reading color spray provides a method for high level illusionists in AD&D to knock out exceptionally powerful creatures with a single first level spell. It almost becomes a "must have" spell for the attack oriented illusionist. Sure, creatures get a save versus spells...but that's still a 45% chance to take down a frost giant. And consider the crafting of a wand of color spray! As a first level spell, that's probably a very cheap outlay for an 11th level illusionist to manufacture in exchange for a huge amount of firepower.

[**EDIT** Ha! Just realized that under the 2nd edition rules, that same 11th level illusionist...er, "specialist wizard"...would be able to knock down 1D6 frost giants with each casting of color spray, with a 50% chance of success (due to the -1 save penalty assigned for specialization), AND she could memorize the spell five times a day! Just walk around the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl...perhaps with an improved invisibility spell...knocking out 10+ hit die creatures left and right, recharging in her rope trick retreat when necessary. Talk about game breaking...]

Sorry folks but...much as it hurts...I think I'm going to have to modify this spell back to some semblance of what the original designer (Aronson) presented in Dragon magazine. My B/X mind would probably want to simplify it to something like:

Target 1D6 HD of creatures within range. Illusionist chooses creatures affected. No saving throw allowed unless a creature's level/HD exceeds the remaining number of HD affected by the spell (maximum of one creature may be assigned a "partial" number of HD). Affected creatures are knocked unconscious for 2D4 rounds. Range 6"+1" per level.

Something like that. But tarted up with language about clashing colors and whatnot.

All right, that's enough to chew on for a Thursday morning. Ha! Bet you didn't think I was going to pull a 1500 word post on color spray out of my hat, did you?
; )

Picture cropped or you'd see the mind flayer she's
targeting. Must be an 8th level illusionist.

Use Your Own Illusion

In the comments on my last illusionist post, Alexis wrote the following:

Above 4th level, the illusionist spells as written in the AD&D Players Handbook are ... garbage. Utter trash. They lack proper spell descriptions, with usually less than a hundred words to describe a spell that absolutely cannot be inherently understood. Clearly, the publishers lacked space or any real content they could produce. As such, once an illusionist hits 9th level, we're pretty much in the land of "just make stuff up." It is crazy clown time, I can tell you.

As most of my readers know, I’m an admirer of Alexis’s work, especially his critical thinking with regard to the Dungeons & Dragons game. And after reading his comments (and knowing that he doesn’t usually make off-the-cuff slander without good reason) I emailed him for elaboration…because, while I want to examine the spells with my own critical eye, I don't mind using his perspective as a starting point. He was kind enough to oblige me with some specifics:

• He dislikes the demi-shadow magic and demi-shadow monster series (the latter culminating in 6th level spell shades, originally named "shadow monsters III"). Aside from a segment or two of increased casting time, there are no changes to the spell save incremental increase of “real” damage/hit points, and this could be modeled fine with an incremental range based on caster level (similar to spells like magic missile, fireball, etc.) rather than wasting a whole separate spell slot. If you like scaling spells (not everyone does) you can’t really disagree with him…there just isn’t much distinction between the entries; I’d likewise put minor creation and major creation in this category. This being said, if you do change shadow monsters to a spell that scales up to “shades level” then - when an illusionist hits 12th level - you’re giving her the same (6th level) spell equivalent THREE times (the number of 4th level slots that level illusionist has), effectively tripling her power. Of course, this only matters in a By The Book campaign where a spell-caster can memorize the same spell more than once. 

[both Alexis…and myself…ascribe to the house rule of only allowing a single casting of a particular spell each day. For me, this adds more variety to the game, and requires spell-casters to use alternate methods of accomplishing tasks. But I understand that this notion isn’t everyone’s cup of tea]

• He finds the 7th level spell “First Level Magic-User Spells” to be patently ridiculous and, again, I don’t disagree. However, this entry was changed substantially from Aronson’s original version. The class, as first presented in The Strategic Review, was allowed to learn a 1st level magic-user spells in lieu of a 4th level illusionist spell, and a 2nd level magic-user spell in lieu of a 5th level illusionist spell (5th level spells being the MAXIMUM of the original class, based on OD&D’s pre-Supplement spell-caster limits). I infer the designer’s original intent was to show the illusionist’s scale of power as a subclass of wizard…that a spell like magic-missile could only be gained upon reaching 8th level or levitate at 10th level. It’s not all that different from an assassin’s lesser thief skills or a paladin’s lesser turning abilities. And limiting the MU spells gained to 1st and 2nd level prevents the high level illusionist from learning “signature” magic-user spells like fireball and lightning bolt and fly: the flashy evocations that really give wizards their swagger. 1st and 2nd level utility spells (or a cheap burning hands)? Sure, why not. Unfortunately, the ramp up of power for the class (i.e. adding 6th and 7th level spells) renders the addition of this “MU option” in the middle of the lineup as silly. If an illusionist can learn 1st level MU spells as 4th level spells, shouldn’t they be able to learn 3rd level MU spells as 6th or 7th level spells (thus stepping on the wizard’s swag?)? Gygax’s solution: move 1st level MU spells to 7th level, the height of an illusionist’s power. Of course, a single 1st level spell of ANY class is a poor excuse for a 7th level spell…so Gygax’s edit is to allow the illusionist to take FOUR such spells for each selection of “1st level magic-user spells.” It’s a tepid patch and, frankly, one that causes additional headaches (such as when it comes to reading and writing spell scrolls). 

• Alexis singles out several high level spells that don't appear to punch their weight when it comes to assigned level. These include veil (equivalent of a 4th level spell), shadow door (a needlessly fancy invisibility…and not even improved invisibility!), prismatic spray (a randomized/possibly ineffective attack spell at 7th level?!), vision (more or less equivalent to divination, the 4th level cleric spell), and programmed illusion (a contingency-style version of spectral forces). I happen to agree with his disapproval of the first three which all appear to be Gygax inventions: veil, shadow door, and prismatic spray do NOT appear in Aronson’s original manuscript and they are all very “weak sauce” spells attempting to fill out roster holes (Aronson wrote only five and six spells, respectively, for 6th and 7th level illusion magic, and Gygax is plugging holes left in the 5th level from the removal of create specter and 2nd level magic-user spell). It’s hard to quibble too much with vision when you consider that there was no divination spell at the time Aronson wrote it (the 2D6 reaction roll is a throwback to OD&D, for which the spell was originally written, and it’s a little strange/lazy that Gygax retained it after replacing all such rolls in AD&D with % base…see the aforementioned divination as an example), but given that divination DOES exist in AD&D, it’s probably best to make it more distinct (I don’t mind different spell-casters carrying different forms of overlapping magic). Programmed illusion does seem slightly underpowered for a 6th level spell (considering that permanent illusion is likewise persistent without the caster’s concentration and yet has no expiration date)...5th would have been more appropriate level for the spell. I’d also point out that originally the spell had a duration of 12 turns, not one round per level. 

[yes, I realize that prismatic spray is listed in the updated illusionist spell list…byline Peter Aronson…of Dragon magazine #1. However, the spell is given no description in the magazine, so who knows who added it? In Aronson’s LATER 1977 manuscript, it is NOT listed in the spell list of 7th level spells, despite the author having added multiple ADDITIONAL spells (color bomb, dreams, and phantoms) to both to the spell lists and the spell descriptions which, for me, is evidence that prismatic spray is not an Aronson invention. ALSO, please note that “prismatic wall” was the ORIGINAL name for prismatic sphere in Supplement I: Greyhawk. Aronson never intended these to be two separate spells: his original description was “as the MU spell.” It was only Gygax who distinguished these as two separate spells in the PHB]

• The final spell singled out by Alexis is alter reality, which he finds to be poorly defined. Is it a limited wish or isn’t it? Is it real or an illusion? The ORIGINAL version was all of one sentence: “A form of limited wish, but the illusionist must first make a [sic] illusion of the change he wishes to cause.” It is not stated HOW the illusionist “makes the illusion;” Aronson did not specify a particular spell that needed to be cast. Still, I think it’s a fair assumption to make alter reality a “two-parter” of a spell in order to make it a more limited limited wish. Why? Because despite being a 7th level spell, an illusionist can pick it up with a mere 1,100,001 experience points, the equivalent of a 12th level magic-user...whereas a wizard requires over 1.5 million experience to perform the same magic. I rather like the idea that the illusionist first imagines and creates her (illusion of) reality…and only afterward decides whether or not to expend the spell power (and take the three years of aging!) necessary to assign it permanence. For me, it flavors a spell that would otherwise be a duplicate of limited wish (similar to 3E’s clerical spell miracle). As I said above, I'm not against spell-casters "doubling up" on spells of similar effect...so long as they're thematically appropriate and possess their own particular style. 

[all that being said...wow...the 5th level illusionist spell "dream" (found in Unearthed Arcana and NOT to be confused with Aronson's - unpublished - spell dreams) is terrible as a "far more limited" version of limited wish. A limited limited wish? How about a limited limited limited wish at 3rd level? Jeez...now that IS lazy spell design...]

Part 1 of many...probably

Ah well. The point of all this is that there's quite a bit of work to be done but...in my opinion...maybe not an impossible (or even excessive) amount. Nathan Irving published a 34 page book called The Basic Illusionist for the Swords & Wizardry retroclone and, while it doesn't quite hit the mark for me, it offers a few interesting ideas on the class...probably more than Unearthed Arcana, whose additional illusionist spells (with a handful of exceptions) just doesn't prime my pump.  I doubt I'd put out anything as ambitious as Irving's book, but after taking THIS much time with the class I feel obliged to write up something. At least a better spell list.

But I think that will need to wait for the next post. I've got a whole spreadsheet diagramming illusionist spells of every stripe, where (and by whom) each was introduced, how they migrated, what they cross-reference with regard to magic-user spells (both by level and x.p. value necessary for casting). One thing really stands out about the illusionist when you start examining her: she really goes up in level fast, compared to the magic-user. Her total number of spells by experience point isn't so much different (and factors in favor of the MU at high levels...of course), but the sheer speed at which she gains access to high level magic is pretty amazing. An illusionist gains access to 7th level spells 700,000 x.p. before a cleric; you could run a second illusionist to 12th level with that amount of experience points! Wow.

Maybe that's why I like the class so much...sheer power potential. Now I just need to get the spells right.
; )

My Illusionist

My children have been eager to play D&D again since Tuesday's foray into the ruins of Tower Zenopus. Especially my boy, who just really wants to talk about D&D now. Last night, he wanted to pump me for info on my past experiences: Did I like DMing more than playing? What had I done more of? What was my favorite character class to play? What was the character class I had played the most over the years? What was the character class that I'd played the best? If I could play any class, which would I want to play?

All fairly tough questions, and not ones for which I could rattle off simple or straightforward answers...though I tried in at least one (or three) cases. As to which character class I would like to play, right now at this moment, I almost said ranger (still thinking of my human bugbear) but found the word illusionist coming out of my mouth instead. Which goes to show I'm still not over my fascination with this class as I originally posted waaaay back in 2010. I'm sure this particular fire has been kept alive by things like my adaptation of the class for Holmes Basic and the recent discussions over at Anthony Huso's Blue Bard blog.

Mind Bending

So waking up around 3am last night and being stuck in a mental cycle of considering the class (and not being able to sleep) I got up and started doing some research on the AD&D illusionist because, as I recall, every time I pull out my old PHB I find myself somewhat sputtery and irritated by the character as presented...one of the reasons I ended up going back to The Strategic Review for my Holmes version. "Research," in this case, consisted of cross-referencing the PHB information with Peter Aronson's original article (and its follow-up in Dragon #1), Grodog's interview questions (as referenced in the comments of Huso's blog post), and this article from Jon Peterson on the class's development, before finally going back to the PHB with a fine-toothed comb...just to see how (and if) Gygax had really "botched up the class" when rewriting it for AD&D.

Spoiler alert to that last bit: yes and no.

We'll come back to that in a second. First, though, let's consider the problem that leads to all problems with the illusionist class: the idea, the concept that the spell phantasmal force can create real, permanent effects...specifically DAMAGE...on individuals that believe the illusion.

Let's stop for a moment. Have you ever had a dream where you were killed? Like a falling dream where you actually hit the ground? Or that you were stabbed in the heart? Or that you were shot in the face with a gun? I have...not many, but several times: probably four or five in my life. I can count them because they were both intense and memorable. And they all resulted in the same thing: I woke up. Getting shot in the face by a ski-masked gunman is probably the most memorable (I've had that one a couple times)...the guy has me dead to rights, I know I'm dead, I feel the explosion of the bullet hitting me in the face, and then I am suddenly awake. 'Oh, it was just a dream...thank God!'

I do not have a heart attack (though my pulse is often racing). I do not go into shock or brain death. I do not feel "phantom pain." It's simply over and I realize the whole scene was nothing but an illusion.

That's what the original writers of the spell didn't realize (or didn't consider): a system shock roll for sudden aging or a physical transformation makes sense because it is based on an actual warping of one's physical body. People don't die of fright, except in certain types of horror fiction (and film based on the same). Or rather, they can...if they are one of the few people in the world that suffer from cardiomyopathy syndrome AND are in a weakened condition anyway (like old folks). But I think it's safe to assume that most player characters (and most D&D monsters) are made of sterner stuff than that.

The origin of that stupid first sentence in the phantasmal force description can be traced back to OD&D ("Damage caused to viewers of a Phantasmal Force will be real if the illusion is believed to be real.") which comes from the spell's original application in the Chainmail war game as a spell that summons an illusionary unit to fight for the caster. The Chainmail version makes no mention of believing/disbelieving or real damage or anything...although I can see how on the field of battle a unit of soldiers in close formation fighting illusionary warriors might accidentally stab their buddies. But consider this: a unit of (illusionary) archers appears on the horizon and launch a massive volley of arrows high into the air, darkening the sky. The (real) soldiers targeted, seeing DEATH coming, squeeze their eyes shut, crouch down and raise their shields over their heads, waiting for the inevitable and...and...and nothing happens. They open their eyes and look around at their fellows, perhaps with phantasmal arrows sticking out of shields (and bodies!) and stand amazed at the magic of such illusions.

But they don't die. 

NOW this is not to say that a clever illusionist cannot cause harm or death with the phantasmal force spell...an illusionary bridge over a chasm, for example, will drop the first person that attempts to step foot on it. But the arrows and soldiers and monsters conjured by the spell are no more than ghosts or wispy spirits, providing entertainment perhaps, but disappearing when touched or contacted. Certainly it makes a fine spell for a 1st level illusionist.

But the high level illusionist is a powerful individual that can actually bend reality to conform to her visions, creating shadow monsters and shadow magics that DO cause true damage, making minor and major creations possessing substance (though temporary), and culminating in her ability to alter reality itself, bending it to her will alone. The wizard's spell wish is more powerful, yes...but note that is a conjuration spell: the magic-user is contacting other dimensions/powers to grant her the boon she craves. The illusionist simply imagines, and then molds reality to her own truth.

[not without cost, of course: casting alter reality ages the illusionist three years and requires a roll for system shock as usual. Such bending of physics should never be undertaken lightly!]

SO...having established a new baseline for what phantasmal force is and what it can do and seeing that we've got a good range between that (as a first level spell) and alter reality (at the highest end of illusionist magic), I can come back to addressing my issues with Gygax's AD&D, which is this: Why are some illusionist spells placed at the wrong level for such a specialist class? For example: why is ventriloquism a 2nd level spell for an illusionist when it is an incredibly basic illusion (1st level for magic-users!) and the illusionist has already mastered this kind of thing (phantasmal force at 1st level!)? Why can the illusionist cast a 3rd level (magic-user's) image illusion (like phantasmal force) at first level but requires a 2nd level spell slot to cast a weaker image illusion, like mirror image? That doesn't make sense to me at all.

And it didn't to the designer, either. The Strategic Review article that published Aronson's illusionist class came out after the original Greyhawk supplement, but was written BEFORE said supplement, and thus did not take into account the new magic-user illusion spells, nor the higher level magics available for spell-casters. HOWEVER, the illusionist that appeared in Dragon magazine #1 (also written by Aronson) DID take these into account and updated the class to reflect the changes. And lookee here what we have: mirror image and ventriloquism at first level, rope trick and dispel illusion at second level, dispel exhaustion and phantasmal killer (the REAL "mind shock" illusion and the beginning of "mental-illusions-having-impact-on-reality" spells) at third level, etc. So what the heck changed? Why did Gygax...whose list of illusion spells almost exactly conforms to Aronson's...decide to wreck what was appropriately scaled by the original author?

One reason, as far as I can tell: symmetry. The new additions of dancing lights and audible glamer...both perfectly appropriate as 1st level spells for an illusionist...were added to the list. As a result, two spells (ventriloquism and mirror image) were BUMPED in order to keep the number of illusionist spells capped at twelve per level...with a corresponding cascade effect on later entries.

This...is...sooooooo...mind-numbingly irritating.

Hey, I understand that it's nice to be able to roll a D12 and get your random spells as needed. But you know what? Not at the sake of screwing up the scale (for a wizard, audible glamer is a 2nd level spell and ventriloquism is 1st level...how does it make ANY SENSE AT ALL to reverse these for an illusionist?!!!). It's not like you didn't boost the number up to 16 per with the Unearthed Arcana anyway, dude.

But you know what you can do to keep your probability equal (while having 14 spells at 1st level)? Roll a D20 to determine the random spell and roll again if the number comes up a 15-20. OR you could simply leave the new spells (audible glamer and dancing lights) off the list of starting illusionist spells (as you did with Tenser's floating disk and Nystul's magic aura for magic-users). OR you could do this:

Roll D12 three times to determine starting spells
1. Audible Glamer or Ventriloquism (illusionist's choice)
2. Change Self
3. Color Spray
4. Dancing Lights
5. Detect Illusion
6. Detect Invisibility
7.  Gaze Reflection
8. Hypnotism
9. Light or Darkness (illusionist's choice)
10. Mirror Image
11. Phantasmal Force
12. Wall of Fog

See how easy that is? So easy, in fact, that I shall be using this method for all future illusionists in my campaigns. Right after I reset all the illusionist spells to their proper places in the level hierarchy (I will also be adding Aronson's spells color bomb, dreams, and phantoms...all of which are slightly quirky, yet appropriate in terms of theme and scale to his concept of the character class; will probably not add back create specters).

But all that is (perhaps) a post for later. Right now, I've got to get to my housework. Cheers!

Holmes Rules: The Illusionist (Part 2)

[the write-up for the illusionist subclass can be found here...go and read that first, if you haven't already done so. This is "spell section" for the character]

Illusion Magic

Illusion magic is different from the work of normal wizards, who use magic to bend the laws of nature to their will. Illusionists care little for bending reality; bending one's perception of reality is quite enough, and decidedly more effective once you've discovered the secrets of doing so. After all, for most folks, their perception of reality IS "reality."

Illusion magic effects no real change in the mundane realm; all that occurs takes place in the minds of those that behold the illusions. Illusionist spells may be targeted by dispel magic, but the illusionist is treated as a caster two levels higher than her actual level of experience.

Illusions may be disbelieved, but doing so is no easy matter, certainly not as easy as announcing "I disbelieve everything!" To disbelieve, one must have reason to doubt what they perceive is real, and simply being in the presence of a known illusionist is not enough. When an adventurer sees a monster approaching, hears its heavy step, smells its stench, the character does not have the presence of mind to doubt what her senses are telling her. No, her heart races, her adrenaline fires, she slides into full "fight or flight" mode (however the character's individual training has conditioned her to handle such a situation). The same holds true when confronted by a chest of gleaming coins, or a bubbling fountain, or any other vision manufactured by the illusionist. Characters have spent their entire lives trusting their senses to lead them through life...they do not simply "disbelieve" what those senses tell them.

To disbelieve an illusion (and thus gain a saving throw to see through the spell), a character must have good reason to doubt...a monster that makes no noise or has no smell could warrant a check, but not a standing stone. Even an unusual item...a tree blooming in the middle of winter...could be ascribed to "magic" in a magical world. Having said that, an illusion is a magical effect and, if identified as such (by means of a detect magic or similar), would give a character a reason to disbelieve. Seeing one illusion dispelled might be enough reason as well, if the second illusion is encountered soon thereafter.

All illusions fade if the illusionist that created them dies.

The following spells are available to illusionists:

FIRST LEVEL ILLUSIONIST SPELLS
1. Change Self - Duration: 1 turn per level. Changes the caster's appearance (including clothing and equipment) to one of the same general size and shape (up to 1' shorter or taller); at 5th level change may apply to illusionist's mount as well.
2. Darkness - This spell is the same as the 2nd level magic-user spell.
3. Detect Illusion - Duration: 1 turn. Allows the illusionist to see through illusions, and know them for what they truly are. The illusionist may enable others to see through the illusion as well simply by touching them during the duration of the spell. This spell allows the illusionist to automatically disbelieve any illusion revealed; others for whom the truth is revealed must still make a saving throw to disbelieve (when released from the caster's touch, they again perceive the illusion, but have reason now to doubt).
4. Hypnotism - Range: 30 feet. Acts as a charm person, but the illusionist must look into the subject's eyes and the saving throw is at a -2 penalty.
5. Phantasmal Forces - This spell is the same as the 2nd level magic-user spell.
6. Wall of Fog - Range 30 feet; Duration 3 turns. Creates a billowing cloud of misty vapors 40' by 20' by 20' completely obscuring vision both within and through its mass.

SECOND LEVEL ILLUSIONIST SPELLS
1. Hypnotic Pattern - Projects a weaving, mesmerizing pattern into the air that will captivate up to 24 hit dice of creatures within a 30' x 30' area (saving throw allows subjects to avert their gaze). The pattern lasts for as long as the caster maintains concentration. Affected targets will continue to stand rapt and motionless for D6 rounds after the pattern fades.
2. Improved Phantasmal Forces - As phantasmal forces, but the illusion now includes sound and the illusionist can move while maintaining the spell. The illusion persists for three turns after the caster ceases to concentrate.
3. Invisibility - This spell is the same as the 2nd level magic-user spell.
4. Mirror Image - This spell is the same as the 2nd level magic-user spell.
5. Misdirection - Range 30 feet; Duration 1 turn. The subject of this spell causes detection spells to malfunction when targeted (detect evil, magic, etc.), instead detecting as the opposite of reality.
6. Sense Deprivation - Range 120 feet. Illusionist may remove one of the subject's senses, rendering them blind, deaf, unable to smell, etc. The target is allowed a saving throw to resist; otherwise, the deprivation lasts until dispelled or removed by the caster.

THIRD LEVEL ILLUSIONIST SPELLS
1. Dispel Illusion - Range 120 feet. Immediately dispels the effect of any illusionist spell of an equal or lesser caster. Against a greater illusionist the percentage chance to dispel is 50% -5% per level difference.
2. Fear - Exactly as a wand of fear, though the save is versus spells.
3. Hallucinatory Terrain - Range 240. This illusion hides terrain features in the area, making it appear to be something it is not. The spell lasts until dispelled or touched by an intelligent creature.
4. Nondetection - Duration 2 turns x level. This spell renders the illusionist undetectable by any spell or magic (including crystal balls, medallions of ESP, etc.).
5. Paralysis - Exactly as a wand of paralyzation, though the save is versus spells.
6. Spectral Forces - As improved phantasmal forces, but the illusion now includes smell and thermal (temperature) elements, and it is not destroyed if touched. The illusion lasts for six turns after the illusionist ceases concentration.

FOURTH LEVEL ILLUSIONIST SPELLS
1. Confusion - Range 120 feet; Duration 1 turn. Causes flicking images in the minds of all opponents within the 30' radius of effect, making enemies appear to be friends and vice versa. Each round, roll 2D6 to see what action an affected individual takes: 2-5 attack normally, 6-8 stand around doing nothing, 9-12 attack a friendly target. Targeted creatures with more than 2 hit dice are allowed a saving throw to resist this magic (it may not be "disbelieved").
2. Emotion - Range 180 feet; Duration D6 turns. Causes all individuals within a 40' radius to be overcome by a single intense emotion chosen by the illusionist; possibilities include fear, hatred, despair, love, anger, sadness, etc. Depending on the emotion chosen, the spell might incite targets to berserker-like violence, withdrawal and despondence, or even suicide. Targets are allowed a saving throw to resist, and an additional save if the spell incites them to any action that would cause themselves harm.
3. Improved Invisibility - As invisibility, but the illusionist may attack and still maintain the spell.
4. Massmorph - Range 240 feet. Conceals up to 100 creatures of roughly human-size to appear as trees, rocks, or similar parts of the terrain. The area of illusion may be moved through, and the concealed figures touched, without dispelling the illusion. Leaving the area of the illusion causes concealed creatures to reveal their true form; the spell otherwise persists until dispelled or the caster commands it to end.
5. Minor Creation - Duration 1 hour per level. As a djinni, may create soft objects (no harder than wood) weighing a maximum of 10 pounds per level of the illusionist.
6. Phantasmal Killer - Range 30 feet. Creates an illusion of the most fearsome thing imaginable in the target's mind, an amalgamation of the subject's subconscious fears. Only the illusionist and the target can see the creature, but if it succeeds in hitting the target (it attacks as a 4 hit dice creature), the subject immediately dies of fright. The killer is invulnerable to all attacks and can pass any barrier as it exists only in the victim's mind. The target is allowed a single saving throw to disbelieve the creature when the spell is first cast, receiving a +2 bonus if she is an illusionist herself; otherwise, only the death of the caster (or the victim) will end the spell. A target that wears a helm of telepathy and successfully saves may turn the phantasmal killer back on the illusionist.

FIFTH LEVEL ILLUSIONIST SPELLS
1. Chaos - As confusion, but more powerful. Only fighters and illusionists of equal or greater level than the caster are allowed a saving throw, and +1 is added to the 2D6 roll to determine the victims' behavior.
2. Major Creation - As minor creation, but the illusionist can now create harder substances (steel, precious metals, gemstones) weighing a maximum of 30 pounds per level of experience.
3. Mind Warp - Range 60 feet. Induces the target to believe she is under some sort of horrific magical effect or curse. Similar to phantasmal killer, the target is allowed a saving throw upon casting, and if failed suffers under the delusion that something terrible has happened: she has been aged to the point of infirmity, become horribly scarred or transformed, lost the ability to speak, etc. No one but the victim and the caster can see the illusion, but nothing will convince the subject to disbelieve once she has failed her initial save; she remains a prisoner of her own mind.
4. Projected Image - Range 240 feet; Duration 6 turns. Creates an illusionary duplicate of the caster in every way, save that it is intangible; attacks pass through the image and touching the illusion does not dispel it. The image takes any actions desired by the caster (walking, speaking, spell-casting, etc.) and the caster perceives the illusion's environment as if the illusionist were the image. The illusionist may take no other action while controlling the image.
5. Shadow Monsters - Range 30 feet. Creates semi-real monsters whose total hit dice do not exceed the illusionist's level of experience. These function in all respects as "the real thing," though they have only two hit points per hit die. If viewers successfully disbelieve, the creatures lose any and all special abilities, revert to armor class 9, and do only 1D4 damage on a successful attack. Regardless, the shadow creations take double damage from silver weapons.
6. Vision - Range 90 feet; Duration 12 turns. Instantly creates an illusionary environment of the caster's desire within a cube of space measuring 180' x 180' x 180'. The vision provides elements that confound all the senses: sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. Individuals can wander through the environment, picking up objects, eating food, interacting with phantom people, etc. When the duration expires (or the illusion is dispelled) all effects of the vision (full stomachs, damage sustained, etc.) vanish with the spell.

[all right...that's about all the awesome I can muster for one night. Damn...now I'd really like to play an illusionist! Too bad these house rules only apply to games I run (rather than play). Maybe an NPC...]

[lots of thanks, BTW, to Peter Aronson and Gary Gygax whose original work and subsequent edits (respectively) were the basis for nearly all of these spells. Remember, folks...these are for the Holmes Basic edition. Many of these higher level spells (like confusion, hallucinatory terrain, and massmorph) aren't present in Holmes, so I'm writing my own descriptions rather than referring to, say, "4th level magic-user" spells. There aren't any 4th level spells in Holmes!]

Holmes Rules: The Illusionist (Part 1)

Sometimes, the oldest version is the best.

[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."

Illusionists -- some magic-users spurn both the higher realms and the natural world, instead plumbing the depths of the mind and imagination. Their studies blur the line between reality and perceived reality, and invariably leads them down the road of illusionist magic.

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.