Illusionists are awesome and have extraordinary defensive and utility powers. Where they come in a little weak is offense. Sure, they can cast spells of other schools, but if they really want to focus on being illusionists, then they are stuck with Phantasmal Force. Phantasmal Killer, and Weird. Phantasmal Force is awesome, but the others are generally considered disappointing.
What are some tricks (feats, magic items, whatever) which can give them a bit more bang?
One thing I found is to not use PK against the BBEG, but against his lackey when you are higher level. Don't take it as your highest level spell, but when you get to 13th level and 4th level spells are more in the intermediate levels for you, then casting it on the BBEG's lackey becomes effective.
Of course, then you are spending your concentration on a lackey, but that might not be too bad for an illusionist.
What are some tricks (feats, magic items, whatever) which can give them a bit more bang?
Anything that adds offensive attacks to give you an oversimplified answer. I guess by your original post you were going for spells that deal damage, so strictly illusion based spells have Shadow Blade, Dream, Mental Prison, and Illusory Dragon.
They aren't weak offensively, I think you're just misplacing their strengths for "offense" by strictly speaking about damage dealt. They get access to most of the other damaging spells the other subclasses get. Illusionists aren't typically employed for their offensive capabilities anyway so if they want to focus on being an illusionist then going offensive isn't always a top priority. But people play classes differently than what they're meant for all the time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When things don't go your way, declare a K.O. and Dempsey Roll the guy in front.
Thanks for the reply. What I was calling "weak" is Phantasmal Killer and Weird. My second post was meant to communicate that Phantasmal Killer might actually be a perfectly balanced spell if the target is a lackey.
I don't think Illusionists are weak by any means, just a little soft on offense if keeping to illusion spells.
Thanks for the reply. What I was calling "weak" is Phantasmal Killer and Weird. My second post was meant to communicate that Phantasmal Killer might actually be a perfectly balanced spell if the target is a lackey.
I don't think Illusionists are weak by any means, just a little soft on offense if keeping to illusion spells.
First highlight: You said Illusionists was a little weak on offense, so either you meant that or you didn't really convey what you meant as well as you thought, so we should clear that up. Then you tried to change what you meant? That is okay, because I would like more clarity so I can understand what you mean better.
So it isn't weak when it fits into the right circumstances but is weak any other time? Or it is only powerful when using the spells in a way it was meant to be used? I think that is what you were trying to get at but it's hard to tell on forums sometimes because everyone talks differently.
Second Highlight: Their offensive illusions spells are quite powerful and rate the same as some other damage dealing spells. So, again, you think Illusionists are weak because, if only using illusion spells, they don't deal enough damage or don't have enough? I'm confused...
Illusionists are awesome and have extraordinary defensive and utility powers. Where they come in a little weak is offense. Sure, they can cast spells of other schools, but if they really want to focus on being illusionists, then they are stuck with Phantasmal Force. Phantasmal Killer, and Weird. Phantasmal Force is awesome, but the others are generally considered disappointing.
What are some tricks (feats, magic items, whatever) which can give them a bit more bang?
I'm getting a lot of different things from you that is trying to be hidden behind "Illusionists only work if..." and then "The damage only counts when..." That is a lot of speculation and circumstantial scenarios.
You said, "Others are considered generally disappointing" when talking about the illusion spells that deal damage, but who agrees with you so far? I personally don't think they're disappointing at all. In fact I love playing my Illusionist wizard more than my abjuration, conjuration, or evocation school because of how versatile they are! :D What I can't tell is if you are trying to get us to agree with you, if you want us to agree with you because your circumstances are being met and that's when you think illusionists only work, if you actually want our opinions, if you want to spin everything so it sounds like your right because you fit them into certain circumstances, or if you just want what your opinion is to be true.
If the subclass features aren't up to par with your "offensive" capability standards for School of Illusion that's fine, you are entitled to have that opinion. But the, "It isn't exactly the same as a high damage dealing spellchucker class or subclass." mentality I am getting just means to me that you want us to agree with you because you came up with a scene or circumstances that pulls their spells out of context for how useful they are. I'm not trying to be rude that is just how what you are telling me reads to me.
1.) Access to other offensive spells for Illusionists that deal damages either doesn't exists or is too limited. That is factually false, and I read that as the initial point you were making.
2.) Illusionists need more spells that deal damage. If that's what you want, there is homebrew options, but I am of the opinion that there are an appropriate amount for them that helps them acheive a good balance.
3.) Illusion spells don't have enough offensive power. According to or compared to what other spells and when on the leveling scale? With the levels they are and when you get them I think they are pretty solid options if you want to focus outside of utility/buff/debuff/control and move into damage.
4.) There aren't enough spells for Illusionists that deal damage like other spells that deal damage. Again this is something you want and that is fine, but it is also irrelevant because they still have good power and still deal damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When things don't go your way, declare a K.O. and Dempsey Roll the guy in front.
"..that is trying to be hidden behind.." How about, since I didn't insult you, you don't insult me? Insinuating that I'm being disingenuous is insulting and entirely unmerited.
Illusionists are extremely strong in defense and utility. When everything is considered in gestalt, Illusionists aren't weak. Think of it like an average. If we were to say that, on a scale of ten, Illusionists rank an 8 on defense and an 8 on utility, but a 3 on offense, they'd average a 6.33 which is still above average even though their offense is poor.
Who agrees with me that Phantasmal Killer and Weird are weak? Pretty much every guide that has ever been written on 5e wizards.
"the, "It isn't exactly the same as a high damage dealing spellchucker class or subclass." mentality I am getting " That's entirely on you. I never once said that the illusionist should be able to do as much hit point damage as, for example, an Evoker.
Really, this all comes down to YOU reading stuff INTO my posts that I NEVER said.
"..that is trying to be hidden behind.." How about, since I didn't insult you, you don't insult me? Insinuating that I'm being disingenuous is insulting and entirely unmerited.
Really, this all comes down to YOU reading stuff INTO my posts that I NEVER said.
I wasn't insulting you, I was pointing out what it looked like you were saying, so if that is a problem then you could clarify it. Even if you feel like taking offense to it there is no need to be rude, just clear it up for me. As for the guides; they are not infallible, so that doesn't really merit that everyone agrees with you. For all I know you could be cherry picking information that you want us to think is the best way to play a subclass that doesn't excel in offense in the first place.
And yeah, I am reading into YOUR posts. You are saying this stuff just not so blatantly. Or maybe you don't know you are saying it so you are getting defensive. Just me saying these things should be a good indicator that your stance isn't very clear on this stuff and it doesn't really seem like you know as much about the topic. You are just here to pick fights, go for it buddy. I'm just trying to get some better answers from you.
You didn't say "it looks like you are saying." You said, "is trying to be hidden behind." That insinuates that I'm being disingenuous and that is insulting.
And trying to be hidden behind what? Instead of taking my words at face value, why ars you looking for something hidden behind them?
Again, YOU are reading stuff INTO my posts that I NEVER said. I NEVER said that everyone believes Phantasmal Killer and Weird are weak. I said that they are GENERALLY (not universally) considered weak.
Maybe you should learn to read between the lines a little bit it will probably help you figure out the answers to my questions that I asked for clarity on.
Now you are just off topic [REDACTED]. Think what you want, they're your opinions. Your posts are highly speculative and you are trying to force me to see your point of view just because I didn't agree with you right away. You lack clarity in your posrs and hard proof other than your word and that doesn't count as proof [REDACTED]. I don't see a point in trying to keep going with you because it isn't going to get anywhere [REDACTED]. Peace out.
P.S. you got a problem with what I said hit me up on dms. I'll get back to you when I feel like it. I'm not gonna blow up a thread for the likes of you.
Notes: Please keep comments constructive and respectful.
I'm locking this thread, as the topic conversation has deteriorated.
I would recommend all review our Site Rules & Guidelines and take any future personal debate to Private Messages. Forum posts are to be kept constructive and respectful in nature at all times.
Thank you much for your understanding,
Sedge
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Illusionists are awesome and have extraordinary defensive and utility powers. Where they come in a little weak is offense. Sure, they can cast spells of other schools, but if they really want to focus on being illusionists, then they are stuck with Phantasmal Force. Phantasmal Killer, and Weird. Phantasmal Force is awesome, but the others are generally considered disappointing.
What are some tricks (feats, magic items, whatever) which can give them a bit more bang?
One thing I found is to not use PK against the BBEG, but against his lackey when you are higher level. Don't take it as your highest level spell, but when you get to 13th level and 4th level spells are more in the intermediate levels for you, then casting it on the BBEG's lackey becomes effective.
Of course, then you are spending your concentration on a lackey, but that might not be too bad for an illusionist.
Anything that adds offensive attacks to give you an oversimplified answer. I guess by your original post you were going for spells that deal damage, so strictly illusion based spells have Shadow Blade, Dream, Mental Prison, and Illusory Dragon.
They aren't weak offensively, I think you're just misplacing their strengths for "offense" by strictly speaking about damage dealt. They get access to most of the other damaging spells the other subclasses get. Illusionists aren't typically employed for their offensive capabilities anyway so if they want to focus on being an illusionist then going offensive isn't always a top priority. But people play classes differently than what they're meant for all the time.
When things don't go your way, declare a K.O. and Dempsey Roll the guy in front.
Thanks for the reply. What I was calling "weak" is Phantasmal Killer and Weird. My second post was meant to communicate that Phantasmal Killer might actually be a perfectly balanced spell if the target is a lackey.
I don't think Illusionists are weak by any means, just a little soft on offense if keeping to illusion spells.
Mental Prison puts out 15d10 psychic damage, if you can shunt them out of their square. That'd tidy damage.
Yes, it is, Belobog. It helps to show, by contrast, just how poor the rest of the levels are after second level.
First highlight: You said Illusionists was a little weak on offense, so either you meant that or you didn't really convey what you meant as well as you thought, so we should clear that up. Then you tried to change what you meant? That is okay, because I would like more clarity so I can understand what you mean better.
So it isn't weak when it fits into the right circumstances but is weak any other time? Or it is only powerful when using the spells in a way it was meant to be used? I think that is what you were trying to get at but it's hard to tell on forums sometimes because everyone talks differently.
Second Highlight: Their offensive illusions spells are quite powerful and rate the same as some other damage dealing spells. So, again, you think Illusionists are weak because, if only using illusion spells, they don't deal enough damage or don't have enough? I'm confused...
I'm getting a lot of different things from you that is trying to be hidden behind "Illusionists only work if..." and then "The damage only counts when..." That is a lot of speculation and circumstantial scenarios.
You said, "Others are considered generally disappointing" when talking about the illusion spells that deal damage, but who agrees with you so far? I personally don't think they're disappointing at all. In fact I love playing my Illusionist wizard more than my abjuration, conjuration, or evocation school because of how versatile they are! :D What I can't tell is if you are trying to get us to agree with you, if you want us to agree with you because your circumstances are being met and that's when you think illusionists only work, if you actually want our opinions, if you want to spin everything so it sounds like your right because you fit them into certain circumstances, or if you just want what your opinion is to be true.
If the subclass features aren't up to par with your "offensive" capability standards for School of Illusion that's fine, you are entitled to have that opinion. But the, "It isn't exactly the same as a high damage dealing spellchucker class or subclass." mentality I am getting just means to me that you want us to agree with you because you came up with a scene or circumstances that pulls their spells out of context for how useful they are. I'm not trying to be rude that is just how what you are telling me reads to me.
1.) Access to other offensive spells for Illusionists that deal damages either doesn't exists or is too limited. That is factually false, and I read that as the initial point you were making.
2.) Illusionists need more spells that deal damage. If that's what you want, there is homebrew options, but I am of the opinion that there are an appropriate amount for them that helps them acheive a good balance.
3.) Illusion spells don't have enough offensive power. According to or compared to what other spells and when on the leveling scale? With the levels they are and when you get them I think they are pretty solid options if you want to focus outside of utility/buff/debuff/control and move into damage.
4.) There aren't enough spells for Illusionists that deal damage like other spells that deal damage. Again this is something you want and that is fine, but it is also irrelevant because they still have good power and still deal damage.
When things don't go your way, declare a K.O. and Dempsey Roll the guy in front.
"..that is trying to be hidden behind.." How about, since I didn't insult you, you don't insult me? Insinuating that I'm being disingenuous is insulting and entirely unmerited.
Illusionists are extremely strong in defense and utility. When everything is considered in gestalt, Illusionists aren't weak. Think of it like an average. If we were to say that, on a scale of ten, Illusionists rank an 8 on defense and an 8 on utility, but a 3 on offense, they'd average a 6.33 which is still above average even though their offense is poor.
Who agrees with me that Phantasmal Killer and Weird are weak? Pretty much every guide that has ever been written on 5e wizards.
"the, "It isn't exactly the same as a high damage dealing spellchucker class or subclass." mentality I am getting " That's entirely on you. I never once said that the illusionist should be able to do as much hit point damage as, for example, an Evoker.
Really, this all comes down to YOU reading stuff INTO my posts that I NEVER said.
I wasn't insulting you, I was pointing out what it looked like you were saying, so if that is a problem then you could clarify it. Even if you feel like taking offense to it there is no need to be rude, just clear it up for me. As for the guides; they are not infallible, so that doesn't really merit that everyone agrees with you. For all I know you could be cherry picking information that you want us to think is the best way to play a subclass that doesn't excel in offense in the first place.
And yeah, I am reading into YOUR posts. You are saying this stuff just not so blatantly. Or maybe you don't know you are saying it so you are getting defensive. Just me saying these things should be a good indicator that your stance isn't very clear on this stuff and it doesn't really seem like you know as much about the topic. You are just here to pick fights, go for it buddy. I'm just trying to get some better answers from you.
When things don't go your way, declare a K.O. and Dempsey Roll the guy in front.
You didn't say "it looks like you are saying." You said, "is trying to be hidden behind." That insinuates that I'm being disingenuous and that is insulting.
And trying to be hidden behind what? Instead of taking my words at face value, why ars you looking for something hidden behind them?
Again, YOU are reading stuff INTO my posts that I NEVER said. I NEVER said that everyone believes Phantasmal Killer and Weird are weak. I said that they are GENERALLY (not universally) considered weak.
Maybe you should learn to read between the lines a little bit it will probably help you figure out the answers to my questions that I asked for clarity on.
Now you are just off topic [REDACTED]. Think what you want, they're your opinions. Your posts are highly speculative and you are trying to force me to see your point of view just because I didn't agree with you right away. You lack clarity in your posrs and hard proof other than your word and that doesn't count as proof [REDACTED]. I don't see a point in trying to keep going with you because it isn't going to get anywhere [REDACTED]. Peace out.
P.S. you got a problem with what I said hit me up on dms. I'll get back to you when I feel like it. I'm not gonna blow up a thread for the likes of you.
When things don't go your way, declare a K.O. and Dempsey Roll the guy in front.
You stsrted insulting me despite the fact that I've not insulted you and now you say I'm the one being a jerk and looking for a fight?
I'm locking this thread, as the topic conversation has deteriorated.
I would recommend all review our Site Rules & Guidelines and take any future personal debate to Private Messages. Forum posts are to be kept constructive and respectful in nature at all times.
Thank you much for your understanding,
Sedge