In the history of D&D the Illusionist has shifted about when it comes to what they are and what they can do. In AD&D the illusionist was a sub-class of the magic-user. In 2nd edition eight schools of magic appeared and the illusionist was now just one of the eight (this has remained for all subsequent D&D editions). But Castles & Crusades went back to the AD&D illusionist and then gave it a unique twist that allowed it to stand on its own.
When I left D&D and switched to Castles & Crusades I was excited to see that the Illusionist was it’s own class and not subordinate to the magic-user like in 1st edition (“Illusionists form a sub-class of magic-users…[w]hile being equal, or even slightly inferior, to normal magic-users in most respects…”, AD&D 1E PHB p.26), or in recent editions just becoming lost in the crowd of arcane magic, in C&C the illusionist was elevated to something unique (“…it could be argued that illusionist magic is the most powerful of all magics as it can allow those affected by it to defy nature and its physical laws”, C&C PHB, 7th printing, p.69).
Still, I’ve had some issues with how the illusionist class is written up. On the one hand it is clearly TLG trying to bring the AD&D class into C&C, and on the other hand, it feels like someone had an idea for a unique new class but it then got shoehorned into the illusionist. I’ve seen so much potential, and yet the class write-up needs to cleaned up.
Expanding Current C&C Illusionist Monster-specific Spells.
First, let me consider some of the illusionist spells. C&C has greatly expanded the types of spells that illusionists have at hand to cast, and yet some seem strangely restrictive and narrowly focused.
In C&C we have specific illusionist spells like Dragon Mark (0-level), Dragon Armor (1st-level), Dragon Image (1st-level), Illusionary Hounds (1st-level), Dragon Bite (2nd-level), Dragon Mount (3rd-level), Dragon Scales (4th-level), Dragon Shadow (5th-level), etc. Why so many dragon spells? Do illusionists have some special connection to these creatures that we don’t know about? What is the rationale? You could simply say that dragons are cool and this makes the class cooler as a result, but if you have people constantly throwing dragon images and sounds all over the place (and people discovered that most of these are illusions), would this not actually diminish dragons in the world? And what would dragons think if they heard about short-lived, spindly, bipedal apes running about using the majestic images and sounds of dragons to spook people? (Perhaps that is why dragons are always destroying cities and hoarding people’s treasure, they hate that illusionists are using their likeness without permission!)
These illusionist spells are all so very specific. The illusionist is touted as being “masters of time and substance” (C&C PHB p.70), illusion spells “are not simple parlor tricks to fool the weak of mind, but are powerful incantations drawing upon his own powerful mind; he weaves these musings with magic drawn from the world around him, thereby fabricating the very stuff of reality. Illusionists can literally create something from nothing” (C&C PHB p.72), yet why the focus on conjuring hounds and dragon sounds/images? It seems limiting when there are so many other great monsters out their that players can draw upon for a fun encounter.
To give my players more creative flexibility I will be telling them to re-imagine some of the spell names, so instead of Illusionary Hounds, it will be Illusionary Animal. This allows them to choose the animal they wish to make an illusion. Think about how that opens the door to their imagination. Dragon Bite can become Monster Bite and the player can once again choose the beast they wish to create to lunge in and bite the target. This doesn’t have to happen to all of the monster-specific spells, but it would be good to open a few of them up. It would also be a good house rule that an illusionist can only summon the image/sound/scent/feel of a creature they have previously encountered. This allows the character to grow from one encounter to another and from one game session to another. They might begin with by making Monster Bite that of a wolf they previously encountered in combat, then after encountering a cave bear they could add that to their repertoire, in the third session they might encounter a saber-toothed cat, etc. The spell remains the same mechanics-wise, yet the player gets an amazing expansion as to how they creatively present and describe the spell, and that adds so much to an encounter when the player has the ability to imaginatively present a spell in a new way each time they cast it.
Bringing Back Old Illusionist Spells.
I also miss some of the 1E spells like Phantasmal Force (1st-level), Improved Phantasmal Force (2nd-level), and Spectral Force (3rd-level). Now, I suppose Minor Image (2nd-level) and Major Image (3rd-level) are the C&C versions of those (and those names came from D&D 3E), but I plan to take a closer look at this, if nothing else the AD&D spell names are much more interesting than the rather bland “minor” or “major” image. If you were a spellcaster and you came up with a new spell, would you call it “minor illusion” or “phantasmal force”? I suppose it depends on whether you were some austere academic obsessed with the taxonomic ordering of all known forms of magic, or if you were more of an artistic spellcaster seeking to project with a flourish your imaginative imagery into the world around you.
Illusionists and Healing.
I do like the C&C idea that illusionists can heal. “How do they do that?” You might ask. “They heal damage in the same manner in which they cause damage – not by tricking their targets but rather by projecting their own magical power into the target and changing the nature of time and substance. They do not trick the target’s mind into physically healing itself…An illusionist channels or controls the natural magic of the world around him” (C&C PHB, p.72).
However, this is contradicted when you look at the healing spells in the PHB. The Players Handbooks spell entries for the Cure Light Wounds, Cure Critical Wounds, and Cure Critical Wounds (p.99-100) all say that when the illusionist casts the spell that the “the recipient of the spell must make an intelligence saving throw. If the creature fails the saving throw, the spell acts normally. If the creature makes the saving throw, the spell fails as the creature realises that the spell is an illusion” (C&C PHB p.100).
But then in the Castle Keepers Guide (2nd printing) it gets it right by saying this: “To bring greater continuity to the table and to better express the illusionist’s power as a manipulator of time and space in regard to his ability to heal, it may simply make more sense to have the illusionist make an attribute check to succeed at casting any curing spells. When an illusionist attempts to heal, the recipient, either unconscious or conscious, receives the magic only if the illusionist successfully makes his attribute check. In this case, the CL equals the level of the target. Use this rule in place of the target making the check against the illusionist. This approach expresses the nature of the class better than when the target makes a save” (C&C CKG p. 52).
Yes! So why does the PHB still have the outdated and confusing statements in the cure spells that the target makes the check? I will be sure to let my players know to ignore what the PHB says in the cure wounds spell entries regarding illusionists.
So those are my thoughts on the C&C illusionist, what do you think?