Illusionist healing spells

[csperkins1970]

So, if there is ever a 5th printing of the PHB, would you want the illusionist healing spells removed?

For the record, I'd vote "yes" because I use C&C to emulate D&D and the change to the illusionist class don't fit in with any version of D&D that I've ever played. Sure, I could (and do) houserule it out but I'd like to see another "fix" to the illusionist class that's more in keeping with their origins. For example, I'd love to see the 5th printing offer expanded spell lists for all classes (there are plenty of OGL spells out there that could get the C&C treatment).

[Breakdaddy]

The CKG has a much better rationale for why and how illusionists deal with healing. I wasn't initially a fan, but the new rationale makes it far more acceptable to me for in game use.

For this reason alone, I vote to keep it. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, so this is strictly IMO.

From the CKG (the new mechanic is not listed but the text for the rationale is):
"C&C has taken a wholly unique approach to illusionary magic in making the illusion real. This is not because of the weakness of the target, nor because of his inability to discern the real from the unreal. It rests in the power of the illusionist. The more powerful the illusionist, the greater the impact the illusionist and his spells can have on the game. If the illusionist is an actual spellcaster capable of manipulating the world around him, then logic and the enterprising player eventually arrive at the healer’s door.
In C&C illusionists can heal damage. 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 psychically healing itself; that assumption assumes the target is mentally able to do such a thing. The power of the illusionist does not reside in the target; the illusionist’s power solely resides in the illusionist. Illusionists heal through their own magic, while a cleric channels the magic of a deity, serving as a bridge between the deity and the target to heal it. An illusionist channels or controls the natural magic of the world around him, using the target’s own mind as a bridge between the magic and the target; the more powerful the illusionist, the greater his ability to cross that bridge."

[serleran]

I do not think C&C needs a third class capable of healing magic. I would rather see the illusionist get crowd control, much like a stage magician.

[KaiserKris]

I could get behind the Illusionist having False Life-ish spells, but I'm not really a fan of them having actual healing spells either. I second the expanded spell lists as being an awesome idea. Instead of 20 and 12 for the wizard, maybe go to 25 and 15? And instead of 12 and 8 for the cleric and druid, have 15 and 10 for each level?

[CKDad]

I'm not completely opposed to some form of arcane healing, actually; I don't think C&C needs to ape older editions completely. And there are plenty of examples in myth and fantasy literature of wizards & magicians performing healing.

That said, I've never been able to wrap my head around the stated mechanic & rationale for illusionist healing. I've voted "other".

[Breakdaddy]

My post above has been edited with some context from the CKG.

[csperkins1970]

I could understand if shadow-magic were being used to effect healing. In AD&D, for example, illusionists had access to demi-shadow monster, shadow magic and demi-shadow magic which allowed them to re-create conjuration/summoning and evocation spell effects. By the same token I could understand a 3rd level spell (shadow healing) that allowed for minor healing... say the equivalent of a cure light wounds spell.

While I wouldn't want C&C to slavishly follow D&D (I don't think that it does at this point) I'd think that MANY of its fans are disaffected 3rd and 4th edition D&D fans who are looking for a simpler and more flexible version of the game. As such it would be wise to give them a familiar, but pleasantly and elegantly simpler, ruleset and implied setting.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I don't think it's a bad thing to mix things up a bit in terms of the illusionist class. If nothing else, it gives the illusionist something else to do when pressed for actions. It's just another one of those things that sets C&C apart from, not only previous editions of D&D/AD&D, but also from other games. Why does the game have to mirror those other games?

In my games, the illusionist will never be the primary healer. I houserule my clerics to be able to spontaneously convert prepared slots to healing spells of the same level, as per 3.x rules. Illusionists, as arcane casters, would not be able to do that.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

While I wouldn't want C&C to slavishly follow D&D (I don't think that it does at this point) I'd think that MANY of its fans are disaffected 3rd and 4th edition D&D fans who are looking for a simpler and more flexible version of the game. As such it would be wise to give them a familiar, but pleasantly and elegantly simpler, ruleset and implied setting.

But illusionists casting healing spells really do nothing to add increased complexity to it a la 3.x or 4e D&D. It certainly adds flexibility to the game. Just because it's something a little different, doesn't detract from the quality of the game for those of us who are disaffected 3.x and 4e players. If anything, it provides new options that give more food for thought. If I wanted to play AD&D, I'd play that.

[Mark Hall]

I'm wishy-washy on the topic.

Personally, I do not see a reason that arcane cannot heal, and would, if designing my own game, probably stick most spellcasting in a single class, and move "clerics" into a semi-caster status, or something with powers instead of spells. So, illusionists being able to heal doesn't affect me, but I also don't see why wizards can't.

[Omote]

Keep 'em in. I like the new rationale, plus it makes the class a little more unique for my purposes. Personally, I don't really like illusionists in AD&D or even the version of them in 2E and 3E. I think C&C has made them more flavorful, and almost distinctly different from a wizard. Plus, you can always add in your own rationale or mechanics as to why illusionists have the spells to heal (shadowstuff, mind over matter, false life, etc).

~O

[DeadReborn]

I voted to leave them in. I've been on the fence about this, but after several sleepless nights, have decided to allow arcane healing in my game (once I acually get one going). I understand it's not everyone's cup of tea, but I think the option should be there.

[mgtremaine]

Let's not forget AD&D had dispel exhaustion, that along with limited wish and wish allow enough wiggle room to bring in arcana healing. So I'd say leave it, although I have yet to use it in game.

-Mike

[Dead Horse]

You could also provide new options by allowing any spell caster any spell!

You could provide new options by allowing anyone to cast any spell!

Personaly, when you start blending class abilities like giving mages healing... dilutes the classes.

Might as well get rid of classes completely and let people just do anything.

I think that destroys the simulation of archtypes from fiction.
Sword weilding men
Robed spell casters
Priests of strage gods
Sneaking thieves
etc...

If you like it for your game...more power to you.
But i prefere a more iconic fantasy world.
If an illusionist is supposedly tricking me into being healed..the healing should be illusional entirely.
I think i am healed untill... some predetermined circumstance, then wham! the healing was fake ! ouch!

[Breakdaddy]

I think that destroys the simulation of archtypes from fiction.
Sword weilding men
Robed spell casters
Priests of strage gods
Sneaking thieves
etc...

Archetypes like the Dragon Age books version of the mage that casts healing spells? There is such an wide array of fictional archetypes that they are anything but archetypal.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

You could also provide new options by allowing any spell caster any spell!

You could provide new options by allowing anyone to cast any spell!

Personaly, when you start blending class abilities like giving mages healing... dilutes the classes.

Might as well get rid of classes completely and let people just do anything.

By this reasoning, swords should be limited to front-line melee classes (Fighter, Ranger, Paladin & Knight), daggers should be limited to Rogues & Assassins, only elves can use bows, only dwarves can use hammers & axes etc.

Sorry, but I don't buy into any of this blending stuff, and I don't think the attempts by TLG to inject a little bit of life into two under-appreciated or under-utilized classes amounts to jumping the shark. The idea that the classes have to look exactly like those bearing the same names from any other game system, just because, "That's the way it is," makes no sense whatsoever to me. While I'm not necessarily one to play either of these types of characters on a regular basis, these changes to the "iconic" archetypes make them more interesting for me. If all you're using your cleric for is healing, I'd suspect that the person playing that character in your group is bored silly.

[serleran]

You could also provide new options by allowing any spell caster any spell!

You could provide new options by allowing anyone to cast any spell!

Personaly, when you start blending class abilities like giving mages healing... dilutes the classes.

Might as well get rid of classes completely and let people just do anything.

By this reasoning, swords should be limited to front-line melee classes (Fighter, Ranger, Paladin & Knight), daggers should be limited to Rogues & Assassins, only elves can use bows, only dwarves can use hammers & axes etc.

Yes. That is what racial classes do.

[Omote]

Sorry, but I don't buy into any of this blending stuff, and I don't think the attempts by TLG to inject a little bit of life into two under-appreciated or under-utilized classes amounts to jumping the shark. The idea that the classes have to look exactly like those bearing the same names from any other game system, just because, "That's the way it is," makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Quoted because I could have said no better.

~O

[Go0gleplex]

From the explanation provided, it seems the Illusionist has gone from turning the mind against itself as originally presented way back when it was introduced to AD&D (and later, shadow magic) to projecting force like a mage to affect reality (current incarnation). Not sure I like that. It seems like a mage knock-off with a slightly different spell repetoire. In fact, since several illusionist spells can now immulate wizard spell effects, why bother with a wizard when the illusionisht is so much more powerful, their spells affecting reality with physical consequence.

I simply cannot see an illusionist with healing magic. I can see them with buffing magic, such as aid, where the target gains the benefit of temporary hit points and bonuses, believing themselves to be greater than they actually are, their perceptions altered but reality left unchanged. In fact it makes more sense for the mage to get healing spells...upgraded research built off the "mend" spell. Anyhow...however it rolls out, in my games...illusionists cannot heal.

[Treebore]

I don't remove them from the book, I just remove them from my game. C&C, to me, is all about options. So I am fine with Illusionist spells being in there, because the power of the word "no" is all it takes to remove them from a given game. So whenever anyone hits me up to play an illusionist, I just tell them that the healing spells are not allowed. It is up to the player to then play it, or not.

Simple.

[Dead Horse]

I never said jump the shark.

I love C&C It is the only game i run regularly.

The healing for illusionists is not for me.

[csperkins1970]

Some great points have been made on both sides. Thanks for chiming in everyone.

I'm surprised with how the voting has gone so far. I thought illusionist healing was far less popular than it is (1/2 of the voters so far are in favor of keeping it).

[Treebore]

Some great points have been made on both sides. Thanks for chiming in everyone.

I'm surprised with how the voting has gone so far. I thought illusionist healing was far less popular than it is (1/2 of the voters so far are in favor of keeping it).

I am pretty sure in every thread there has been about Illusionist healing there has always been a number of people who are OK with it. I don't allow it, but I am OK with it being in the book. Who knows? One day I may even decide to allow it.

[zarathustra]

I simply cannot see an illusionist with healing magic. I can see them with buffing magic, such as aid, where the target gains the benefit of temporary hit points and bonuses, believing themselves to be greater than they actually are, their perceptions altered but reality left unchanged.

Basically my position.

If Arcane casters want healing type spells they'd have to delve into the arts of necromancy IMC (some kind of "vampiric" type healing where the strength is sapped from someone else).

I just think 3 of the 4 spellcasting classes having healing is too much for my preferred styles.

[Dead Horse]

I think that destroys the simulation of archtypes from fiction.
Sword weilding men
Robed spell casters
Priests of strage gods
Sneaking thieves
etc...

Archetypes like the Dragon Age books version of the mage that casts healing spells? There is such an wide array of fictional archetypes that they are anything but archetypal.

Never heard of "Dragon age" Conan, John Carter of Mars, Merlin, King Arthur, etc.. Iconic charaters one and all.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I never said jump the shark.

I love C&C It is the only game i run regularly.

The healing for illusionists is not for me.

In terms of shark jumping, sorry about the confusion. I was trying to kill two birds with one stone, and am not skilled enough to quote multiple people in a single message.

C&C is the only FRPG that interests me anymore. It does everything I need it to do.

I'm no more opposed to illusionists healing as I am to them buffing, as per Go0g's post before. I see buffing as more the purview of gods, and thus, cases of divine spellcasters. I'm not opposed, however, to an arcane version of that either.

[dunbruha]

I voted to remove them. I have no problem with arcane healing. I have no problem with C&C being different from D&D. I just can't accept the idea of "illusion" being real.

Illusion: (from the Free Dictionary)
1. a false appearance or deceptive impression of reality.
2. a false or misleading perception or belief; delusion.

Both of these definitions contain the word "false".

So if I were to use the 4th printing rules, I would houserule out the part where it says that illusion spells produce real objects.

[Tadhg]

No, keep illusionist healing.

For me, I like maximum flexibility for my players. And if they have a party full
of druids, paladins, clerics and illusionists, great. I will have prepared plenty of
damage to keep them on their toes and hopefully, barely alive!!

I think the Trolls did a good job with the healing and other illusionist spell additions.

[mgtremaine]

Of course in someways illusionists have healing already via distort reality, granted it is 8th level and the best they can get is cure serious wounds, but it is there.

I think if I add this in I will shift up 1 level and drop heal, then it seems about right. I don't think they should have Cure serious at 4th level which is equal to a Druid. But 3rd for clw and 5th for csw seem about right to me... IMHO of course...

-Mike

[anglefish]

If Arcane casters want healing type spells they'd have to delve into the arts of necromancy IMC (some kind of "vampiric" type healing where the strength is sapped from someone else).

Why? They could use alchemy or witchcraft or fey magics. There's other ways to justify arcane healing than Necromancy.

Personally, I have a harder time justifying a neco/healing spin than a palcebo spell.