Illusionist Healing

[R. Scott Kimsey]

From a discussion going on in the TLG forums. I know not everyone on
this list participates there.

So - illusionists get healing at higher levels. The way it is
described in the Player's Handbook, the illusionist version basically
works because the person being healed 'believes' the illusion, and
really thinks they are being healed. Mind over body.

Because it requires a belief, would you require a saving throw for the
illusionist heal to work? Also, would you let a player purposefully
fail the save (in other words, purposefully choosing to believe the
illusion when in reality maybe they really know it is an illusion)?

Or would you just avoid all of this by saying the illusionist is
casting a real healing spell after all?

[Chris Perkins]

I don't like it.  I can understand the whole mind-over-body thing BUT that should allow the character to avoid the effects of a wound while doing nothing to actually heal it.  Since D&D (and C&C) don't have wound effects (other than unconsciousness and death) the mind-over-body thing doesn't really work.

The only way it could work for me is through "shadow magic"... that draws its power from the quasi-real Plane of Shadow.  That would allow for limited healing/wounding since the Plane of Shadow rests between the Positive and Negative Material Planes.

[Mangus]

From the description it makes it sound like there is no magic involved
in the healing process other than mind over body. I am afraid this
does not make a whole hell of a lot of sense. No matter how much the
spell makes me believe a gapping chest wound can be healed without
medical care (real or magical) in the end there is nothing actually
pulling all that bodily matter back together and forcing it to mend
itself... That is basically establishing that if a character believes
something strongly enough it will actually manifest itself in the game
world. Sounds like it is treading closely on wish spell territory to
me.

On Jul 28, 11:01 am, Chris Perkins <csperkins1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't like it.  I can understand the whole mind-over-body thing BUT that
> should allow the character to avoid the effects of a wound while doing
> nothing to actually heal it.  Since D&D (and C&C) don't have wound effects
> (other than unconsciousness and death) the mind-over-body thing doesn't
> really work.
>
> The only way it could work for me is through "shadow magic"... that draws
> its power from the quasi-real Plane of Shadow.  That would allow for limited
> healing/wounding since the Plane of Shadow rests between the Positive and
> Negative Material Planes.
>

[R. Scott Kimsey]

Yeah, I don't think the fluff that goes with illusionist healing works
well either. Better, I suppose, to either adopt Chris' view, or else
simply say the illusionist is able to somehow draw on energy in much
the same way as a cleric for those spells.

[Mangus]

In my current game sanity plays as much a role as hit points, and
Illusionist are the main source for mental healing via Hypnotism. In
my game I believe I would spin this spell to work on a mental level
instead of a physical level giving the Illusionist the ability to cast
this spell to restore sanity points.

[Patrick Wong]

I would rule as follows:

1. Describe the illusionist healing as being something akin to artificial organs & blood, or implants, which do not work as well as the real thing. I also saw a Star Trek Voyager episode in which a poor guy's lungs were stolen, so they had to use holographic lungs to keep him alive.

2. Set either a hard limit on the duration (in the minutes per caster level range) or require the caster to concentrate to maintain the spell.

I checked the TLG forums and couldn't find any specific discusssion on this subject, anyone have a link handy?

- Patrick Wong

[R. Scott Kimsey]

It shows up in a discussion of the 4th printing PHB, where someone
mentioned the fact that Illusionists can now heal. Kind of buried in
the thread:

http://www.freeyabb.com/trolllordgames/viewtopic.php?mforum=trolllordgames&t=8453&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75&mforum=trolllordgames

[Breakdaddy]

For those that read the thread on the forums, I have stated that for
MY GAME, the Illusionist taps into a minor aspect of the language of
creation (Aihrde-specific) in order to work the healing magics. Since
the whole "Illusionist thing" is creation, this works for my game.
Wizards tend to destroy but Illusionists create, to one degree of
reality or the other. The shadow-plane explanation works well for non
Aihrde settings.

[Guamae]

As the local illusionist, (in scott's game) my opinion is that the
"imaginary healing" working like normal healing makes about as much
sense as the "imaginary fire" burning people (as in one of the 1st
level Dragon spells ... don't have the 4th printing book here to check
which).

The whole prevalence of magic in a world, in my opinion, would call
the very nature of reality into question. Historical philosophers
posited that we have no proof that we're not in a coma being
manipulated by a magical demon to believe everything we know, even
though "reality" is a fiction (yee olde Matrix, if you will). Just
imagine what the philosophers would be saying if 100% real magical
demons showed up every once in awhile to take down a kingdom or raid a
countryside.

And there is obviously magic going on with these spells because it's
not like anyone could do it. You need to be a High level master of
Illusion to pull it off (how high of lvl btw?) I see it as being able
to pull on and distort the threads of reality enough that you can tip
the fragile balance between what is "real" and what is "imaginary."
This conjures cthulu-like images in my mind, kind of like the world
isn't always sure what is "real" and what is "magic."

You could try allowing a save for it if you want to, though i would
give a penalty (bonus?) to the save for not wanting it to happen.
Because if you really DO believe in faeries, tinkerbell might just get
better faster. Maybe not adding level bonus to the save roll, and
possibly ignoring Primary stat as well making it a strait DC 18+CL
unmodified roll. That kind of depends on how lethal you want
adventuring to be.

[R. Scott Kimsey]

Those are all good points. Only place I'd see a real problem is with
unconscious targets. For example, if an unconscious foe were in the
path of your illusory dragon breath, I'd rule there was no effect on
that enemy. He can't even perceive it. Likewise, there would be no
effect of illusory healing on an unconscious friend.

[Deen Mor'iarty]

While I understand the psychosomatic link I have to say.. I've never
seen a placebo sugar cube seal a wound. I'm not a big fan of blending
class abilites so i'd probably throw a reverse saving throw into the
mix. Save vs. charm with a save fail being the successful option to
heal. Elves, who resist charm spells, would be bumming out. But
still, using mind over matter to bend a spoon is one thing.. removing
an arrow is a completely different beast.

[Chris Perkins]

Sadly I think that C&C is trying to break away from its D&D roots...

[R. Scott Kimsey]

I think C&C is in a bit of a tough spot in this regard. Many people
come to it because of the attraction to the old-style feel. That was
the case with me. But to be a successful game in its own right, TLG
has to move away from the perception that it is a clone. Some people
hear about C&C and they think it is something like OSRIC.

Apparently, some later books are coming with things akin to feats, but
that doesn't appeal to me. In fact, part of my attraction to C&C was
to get away from that sort of thing. So long as they don't add those
elements to the core books, I'll continue to be interested :)

[Chris Perkins]

My thought is that the core based should stick to the game's obvious D&D roots as closely as possible.  Supplemental materials (such as campaign settings) would be a great place to branch out and get funky.

That way those who are using the game to emulate D&D or AD&D can do so very easily.  At the same time those looking to move away from the D&Disms of C&C can do so by picking up TLG's Airdhe setting and/or various books of options (like The Castle Keeper's Guide).

[Breakdaddy]

There are no current plans to fundamentally change the information
contained in the core elements in the game. The Illusionist additions
are in no way intended to break from the roots of C&C but meant to
address a well known issue: the uselessness of the Illusionist class
when compared to the other arcane casting option, the Wizard. Not
everyone will agree with the changes. That's ok, the CK can always
roll back spell availability if it rubs you the wrong way or can come
up with a better rationale than mind over body for the newly available
healing spells. TLG's only intention was to offer the classes that
have been changed greater utility. I've been to a few conventions with
TLG and the lions share of complaints have been about the uselessness
of the Illusionist and Barbarian classes. This has been addressed with
the current print of the PHB in a way intended to cause the least
amount of disruption to the overall feel of the game. I, for one, hope
that everyone finds something to like about the new prints. A lot of
effort goes into addressing core issues that the fan base points out
every time TLG goes to print with new products.

[Chris Perkins]

I guess I would have pumped up the illusionist by giving them more spells and giving them some utility spells.  In fact I've done that with my houseruled C&C games and one of my players just made up an illusionist/monk.  Hopefully it works out well.

I'm sure that the folks at TLG were trying to please their customers with the changes but we geeks are a difficult bunch to please.  My criticism of the changes wasn't intended as a slam on TLG... it's more of a "if I were in charge I'd have done things this way" kinda thing.

[Deen Mor'iarty]

Perhaps the utility of an illusionist shouldn't be a matter of
comparing their firepower with that of other classes (mage). Rather,
the GM should tailor individual games to include circumstances where
illusionist abilities come into play and are necessary for role
playing. For instance, if a session devolves into story - fight scene
- story - fight scene then of course an illusionist won't be as useful
as a mage or fighter classes. But, if the GM knows he has an
illusionist in the party then he can add 3 or 4 spots into the
adventure where combat can be circumvented or minimized with
illusions. Perhaps a key factor in the story can be learned only if
the illusionist is able to learn such from role play interaction with
an npc. Perhaps, as an example from our last game, the beasties
should REACT a particular way to having fairy fire cast on them.
Without GM embellishment that spell gives bonuses to hit but it might
ALSO cause low HD creatures to drop their weapon and roll on the
ground as if they think they are on fire (granting free hits for the
higher dps classes). Perhaps they just run away give attacks of
opportunity. I don't expect low HD creatures who may or may not be
familiar with magic, or that particular spell effect, to shrug off
being engulfed in what appears to be flames. Similarly with the
illusionary dragon breath; low HD creatures SHOULD react above and
beyond mere pc bonuses to hit when having the illusion of a fiery
breath come at them. I'm reminded of moral checks in earlier D&D
editions. Monsters won't always fight to the death. They won't
always be familiar with magical abilities. The Illusionist class is
very much like the bard class in this respect. Of COURSE the bard is
not going to do as much per round damage as a fighter; but what he
does have can embellish the RP of a session. The lack thereof might
indicate the need for more GM discretion to mold the adventure around
the party instead of hoping that a one size fits all approach will
work just as well. I guess, rather than try to equalize classes i'd
question what, if anything, can the GM do to make playing the
illusionist class more interesting and compelling.

On Aug 3, 8:27 am, Chris Perkins <csperkins1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess I would have pumped up the illusionist by giving them more spells
> and giving them some utility spells.  In fact I've done that with my
> houseruled C&C games and one of my players just made up an
> illusionist/monk.  Hopefully it works out well.
>
> I'm sure that the folks at TLG were trying to please their customers with
> the changes but we geeks are a difficult bunch to please.  My criticism of
> the changes wasn't intended as a slam on TLG... it's more of a "if I were in
> charge I'd have done things this way" kinda thing.
>

[Deen Mor'iarty]

which reminds me, and this may be fodder for a different thread but,
is anyone familiar with a resource for GMs beyond various DMGs and
DMing for Dummies that conveys a deeper insight about how to DM well?
It seems that most DM resources i've seen really only discuss specific
rules rather than methods to become a better GM; for instance, how to
GM a campaign with an illusionist. Or, how to instigate pc role
playing and interaction with NPCs. Or, positives and negatives to
specific party configuration. Or, advice on how to handle rules
lawyers, missing players, party apathy, overpowered players,
background and party cohesion, cheating and "lucky" attribute score
rolls, etc. Something that calibrates GMs beyond throwing rules at
them and then letting them sink or swim. A resource that covers these
things might reduce the necessity for equalizing all classes down to
comparative damage per round.

[Chris Perkins]

I don't mean firepower... I mean utility spells like knock and such. The class could be helped through the addition of non-combat spells that don't tread of the toes of the cleric (and which, to my mind, make more sense than healing spells).

In AD&D illusionist got a nice boost with the Unearthed Arcana supplement, through spells like mount and various new phantasms (I'm at work, so I can't list some of the added spells they got).

[Breakdaddy]

Robin Law's rules of good gamemastering comes to mind.