Talk:Illusionary Weapons Master (3.5e Prestige Class)

Featured Article Nomination

— This article became a featured article! --Green Dragon (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2013 (MDT)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salasay (talk • contribs) 19:14, 26 January 2013 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

• Comment — A few things are not entirely right.
  • The formatting does not match the preload with the epic table.
  • The class features are missing some links.
  • Each of the NPCs should have a short description.

--Green Dragon (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2013 (MDT)

• Fixed the formatting, and went through the class features for missing links. I added a description for Dale Beltre, but Master Ill'sa already has description throughout the text.

--Salasay Δ 16:13, 25 May 2013 (MDT)

Looks good! --Green Dragon (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2013 (MDT)

• Comment — A few things.
  • I do not find that the image tells one to much about this prestige class, since it just shows a character over a black background. Maybe aother image would be better. --Green Dragon (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
    • I don't like the image either, but it was the only one i could find. I'll look for a different one. --Salasay Δ 19:30, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
      • I found a better image. --Green Dragon (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
        • I like. However, I Would like it croped to be a little smaller. Could you take off the far right side so that it doesn't protrude as far into the page? --Salasay Δ 20:06, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
          • Cropped it and updated the image. --Salasay Δ 07:48, 26 May 2013 (MDT)
            • I put the image back. Like the Artificer (3.5e Class) its size is fine and the scaling is terrible, and the crop cut great parts of the image out. Or find another image and one can be moved further down the page. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2013 (MDT)
  • The class features need "(Ex)", "(Su)", "(Sp)", or "(Ps)" designations where applicable.
  • The class features that are useable a number of times a day should define this in their description too. --Green Dragon (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
    • Will do --Salasay Δ 19:30, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
      • Looks good. --Green Dragon (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2013 (MDT)
  • Illusion Weapon seems a little weak and is not complete. Maybe if it created an illusion of the weapon that the illusionary weapons master is wielding as an added benefit to his attack it would be more useable. Why is Charisma used instead? If the weapon is an illusion attack to the illusionary weapon master's attack, then it should also be useable a number of times a day. In addition is needs a duration. The critical threat range modifier class features also then should modify the illusionary weapons master's weapons threat ranges. --Green Dragon (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
    • It is intended to be similar in utility to the Soulknives Mindblade. I realize that Mindblade is not a particularly powerful ability, but when combined with its full BAB and 7 out of 10 spellcasting, it becomes more useful. Charisma is used instead of Strength because doing so lets the IWM get (on average) 34 damage per hit, due to the reduction in MAD. As for a duration, it would make sense in flavor, but having to re-summon a Illusion Weapon in the middle of a fight (at least before level 7) would be a little too encumbering. If I do add a duration, I'll add a duration of 1 minute for every 3 levels (1m at 1,2,3, 2m at 4,5,6, 3m at 7,8,9, and 4m or maybe unlimited at 10). --Salasay Δ 19:30, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
      • I would use the wording from the soulknife in place of this wording, since it encompasses sizes etc. In addition, the bonus a soulknife gets is an enhancement bonus, and far less useable than the illusionary weapons master's benefit and this prestige class's bonus is greater than double the soulknives. These needs to be brought in check with this reality. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2013 (MDT)
        • The Mind Blade's enhancement bonus is the same as the IWM's enhancement bonus. The IWM just gets +5 force damage (will save for half, two-hand to double) and a good crit instead of weapon special abilities of +4 enhancement value (one of which is Collision, which costs +2 and gives +5 damage), psychic strike, and throw blade. Granted, that's still a good tradeoff, but its so good as to warrant nerfing it very much. I'm willing to make two handing give 1.5 the bonus instead of *2, or maybe just get rid of it, but i don't think the damage bonus is over powered. The Soulknife is considered to be underpowered by most, and PrC's are supposed to be more powerful than classes. --74.242.204.90 18:51, 18 July 2013 (MDT)
          • Still it needs to deal with character sizes. The arcane archer gets +5 similar to this class, but no spellcasting progression and other class features that are similar in power to the illusion weapon master's non-enhancement bonus ones. It could balance the situation if applying the enhancement bonus to his illusion weapon takes a standard action or something (later a move). Something needs to be tweaked though, to make sure that its balanced. --Green Dragon (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2013 (MDT)
            • Would it sound stupid if I wrote something like "He can create a set of two light weapons that deal an amount of force damage equal to a dagger of the appropriate size, one one-handed weapon that deals an amount of force damage equal to a rapier of the appropriate size, or one two-handed weapon that deals an amount of force damage equal to a glaive of the appropriate size that he may switch between reach and non-reach at will." to deal with the sizes? Or should I add something about "for a Medium character" to the current description and add something to the end about weapon equivalences? --Salasay Δ 11:33, 29 July 2013 (MDT)
            • The arcane archer is also a somewhat underpowered PrC. I've actually heard some people suggest buffing it by giving it 5/10 or 7/10 spellcasting to make it less underpowered. I'm reluctant to nerf the enhancement bonus, seeing as it seems to be balanced well compared to the soulknife. --Salasay Δ 15:17, 25 August 2013 (MDT)
              • I feel that the balance is okay how it is now. Although the attack bonuses may be considered overpowered compared with his spellcasting progression alongside them, the specialization in an illusionary weapon brings down the martial combat-effectiveness and balances this out how it is now. --Green Dragon (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2013 (MDT)
  • I think that Flicker should be a spell-like ability instead of a supernatural ability useable a number of times each day so that instead it may be stronger. I am mentioning this because the illusionary weapon master may already have a high amount of concealment, and this ability may not be too useable to often. --Green Dragon (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
    • Flicker is a continuous effect right now, I just flavored it to be non-continuous because "flickering" in non-combat situations would be... odd. I don't see how limiting its activation would make it more powerful (i could be missing something, though). I could add something about it being an additive effect with concealment to a max of 75 or 80 percent. --Salasay Δ 19:30, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
      • I mean that it would be justifiable to increase Flicker's concealment in lieu of its activation, duration, etc. --Green Dragon (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
        • Ahhhh, I see. I like that idea. Should i make displacement activation, or leave it continuous? Also, what should the cap be on the Epic version? or should it just add uses? --Salasay Δ 20:06, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
          • I would make it a free action since its an epitome illusion, with a certain number of uses per day. Maybe the epic version could increase the uses and make it have multiple targets or something. --Green Dragon (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
            • I think I'll give extra uses and small increases to Displacement. --Salasay Δ 22:19, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
              • Much better now. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2013 (MDT)
  • With the full BAB the spellcasting progression should probably be every other level. --Green Dragon (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
    • I'd rather not reduce the spell casting, because the utility of spellcasting is still important to the class. --Salasay Δ 22:19, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
      • For me its hard to tell about the spellcasting balance. Since this is a prestige class, and it has BAB +3 entry requirement and (only though) level 1 spellcasting requirements, it already demands some various progression paths. What spellcasting progression is being used? Its not 1-3-1-3, etc. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2013 (MDT)
        • I'll change the progression to 0111011101. That will make it more of a pattern. --Salasay Δ 13:13, 30 May 2013 (MDT)
          • This pattern works alright for a prestige class, but not too well with such a high-powered Illusion Weapon class feature. In addition the NPCs need updated spellcasting progression, etc. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2013 (MDT)
            • I want a traditional 20th level IWM (1 fighter, 4 sorcerer, 10 IWM, 5 eldrich knight) to be able to cast 7th level spells. That's why i put 7/10 spell casting.i'll change it to 5/10 if i have to, though.--74.242.204.90 18:51, 18 July 2013 (MDT)
              • Changed the casting to 5/10. --Salasay Δ 11:33, 29 July 2013 (MDT)
              • I would change the class features and not the spellcasting. I agree, it would unbalance this prestige class. --Green Dragon (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2013 (MDT)
                • If the options are nerfing the spellcasting or the abilities, I'll nerf the spellcasting. The Illusion Weapon abilities give enough gishy-ness that by lowering its spell casting to 5/10 the martial and magic abilities are more equivalent. And anyway, if someone is willing to break flavor, they can take Abjurant Champion instead of Eldritch Knight and get 7th level spells (but their DM might have an aneurism). --Salasay Δ 11:33, 29 July 2013 (MDT)
                  • The spellcasting progression looks much better now. --Green Dragon (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2013 (MDT)
                    • I actually changed the spellcasting to 1101101101. This is to retain the class's spellcasting edge as well as not powergame its base attack bonus progession, attacks, etc. Unlike other 011 progressions, I started this on a class gain because the merging to combat with spellcasting is weak at the start of this class. I feel that it is fair like this, and is still a viable spellcaster by 20th level. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2013 (MDT)

• Comment — The accompanying NPCs need to have their issues resolved (see also their respective pages). --Green Dragon (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2013 (MDT)

• Comment — A few minor things:
  • Illusion Weapon should not grant the ability for a weapon to switch from reach to none at will. At least make it a move action.
    • Fixed. --Green Dragon (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2013 (MDT)
      • The purpose for that was to give them Shorthaft automatically. Instead of having autoShorthaft, what if I made it so that if they do take Shorthaft it lets them use the IW like a spiked chain. --Salasay Δ 15:17, 25 August 2013 (MDT)
        • That balances his attack options out well and still offers this class the versatility that one desires. A ranged option is not available, but one could relate that to his illusionary weapons only retaining their effectiveness when controlled by the IWM, so that should not be a concern. If, though, you intended something else then you should mention it somewhere on the page so people will not wonder about it and feel that this page was ill-considered. --Green Dragon (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2013 (MDT)
  • Swirling Colors needs adjustment for the rounds that the rainbow pattern works for (divine to arcane maybe). See the wording on the blood knight for how to word such features.
    • 1 minute per class level sounds about right to me. --Salasay Δ 12:56, 24 August 2013 (MDT)
      • Looks good. --Green Dragon (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2013 (MDT)
  • Hardened Casting needs to more accurately define that the levels added are not his character levels, but rather his IWM levels.
    • Isn't that what the difference between "character levels" and "class levels" is? Am I using them wrong, or do you just think it needs more definition in this case? --Salasay Δ 12:56, 24 August 2013 (MDT)
      • You are right, that is the difference. If I recall correctly publications use the terminology "class name class levels" to get rid of any confusion in class features but in description wording they use them interchangeably. --Green Dragon (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2013 (MDT)
  • Does Refine Illusion II stack? What is going on with that class feature? You may just want to change it so that all his illusion spells are cast as if he were a CL higher than he is.
  • Epic Flicker does not work anymore (max 30% instead of 50%?) And it should just keep along the bonus DC trajectory (this is a lot more typical).
    • Thanks for catching that. Its supposed to say "(to a maximum of +30%)". However, the balance needs to be checked on that.
      • I see what you mean. That works (I must have skipped the "additional"). --Green Dragon (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2013 (MDT)
  • "Playing a Illusionary Weapons Master" is good, but I would expand their function to include that sometimes they may be accompanied by multiple tanks/etc, because since their abilities can stall opponents they needs the DPS that other classes can deal. There are also some grammer problems here, e.g. its straight not strait.
    • How about "Most of the time, they will have a fighter or other "tank" to back them up. They also work well with characters that deal heavy damage quickly (such as a rogue), as the illusionary weapons master's abilities make him adept at disabling and hampering opponents. --Salasay Δ 12:56, 24 August 2013 (MDT)
      • That should work just fine. --Green Dragon (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2013 (MDT)
  • "Illusionary Weapons Master Lore" is missing some links. --Green Dragon (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2013 (MDT)
    • Better now. --Green Dragon (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2013 (MDT)

• Comment — Why did you choose an arcane spellcasting progression? With the Charisma bonuses, doesn't a divine spellcaster make more sense? I think this should be changed, unless there is a sound reason that I am not considering. In addition, I tuned Refine Illusion more to his Illusion Weapon, and thereby also changed Bladeweave's level (so there is no blank level since this class has lots of progression features). --Green Dragon (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2013 (MDT)
  • I changed it to a divine progression. --Green Dragon (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2013 (MDT)
    • It's supposed to be a PrC for either bards or multiclass sorcerer/full BAB class, which is why I had it as Cha based spontaneous arcane. I think Wisdom is more associated with divine than Cha (i don't actually know of any Cha based divine casters.) Also (most importantly), Blur, (Greater) Invisibility, Silent/Minor/Major/etc. Image, and Rainbow Pattern are not divine spells, along with most other illusions (in the SRD at least). Also, fireballs are fun. --Salasay Δ 15:17, 25 August 2013 (MDT)
      • For example the bard or the paladin is Cha-based. Right there will always be some discrepancies with certain builds, but Cha does alleviate some of these. Your thoughts? --Green Dragon (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2013 (MDT)
        • The bard is arcane, and the paladin gets Wis based spellcasting. Don't understand what you mean by "discrepancies with certain builds". --Salasay Δ 19:00, 26 August 2013 (MDT)
          • Right, sorry I was mixing it up with its class features. By discrepancies I mean that this build asks for Str, Dex, Con, and Cha being high. If it needed another ability, say Wisdom, then that is really a lot of abilities needed to make this a successful class. It works how it is now though. --Green Dragon (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2013 (MDT)
        • So is the sorcerer though, so I will change it back. --Green Dragon (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2013 (MDT)
• Bladeweave is a replication of a spell from Complete Adventurer. The spell lasts for a certain number of rounds and lets you make a touch attack as a free action to make the target make a Will save or be dazed. The ability is a continuous, simplified version. --Salasay Δ 10:32, 13 October 2013 (MDT)

• Comment — How is the IWM's weapon treated in combat and in the game? How the appearance is determined should be explained. Should they be mostly treated like natural weapons? In any case how they respond to sundering, disarm attempts, grappling attacks, etc needs to be explained in depth. --Green Dragon (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2013 (MDT)
  • I changed it to "armed" unarmed attacks, which should work just fine now. --Green Dragon (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2013 (MDT)

• Comment — The NPCs spells need to be updated. --Green Dragon (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2013 (MDT)
  • Epic spellcasting is missing, some spell levels are not actually gained, and the feats and possessions need to have links present. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2013 (MDT)
    • And the values are messed up. The NPCs need to be checked for errors as well as updated per the class and the above. --Green Dragon (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2013 (MDT)
      • Better now. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2013 (MDT)

• Comment — Looks good! It would be nice, however, to have Master Ill'sa (3.5e NPC)'s ill'sas infinite illusion spell done. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2013 (MDT)
  • That spell is intended to be essentially a blank check, allowing DMs to do whatever kind of illusion they want with it. The most prominent use is for the "Doombot" effect (Ill'sa-bot?). anyway, im intentionaly not giveing it a concrete effect. --Salasay Δ 18:59, 6 November 2013 (MST)
  • Oh hey, this finally reached the status of a finished article, my true commendations, Salasay, and GD. One only has to glimpse at this talk page to see the sheer amount of hard work gone into this class. --SgtLion (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2013 (MST)
    • Thank you. Also, remember that you messed with it some yourself, and helped put me on track to fixing it up. --Salasay Δ 18:59, 6 November 2013 (MST)

Rating

Balance - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because of tiny investment paying off big time. A one-level dip in sorcerer, then a one-level dip in this gives any rogue two wraithstriking light weapons, becoming even more frightening if that rogue is the party face. If "as total concealment" means they attack as if in total concealment, it goes from an very strong, low investment dip to a borderline overpowered one. There's a surplus of abilities, and with 7/10 casting progression it just seems too strong. --R2d2go (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2013 (MST)

The total concealment is without a doubt a highlight of this class. The weapons, however, are only illusionary weapons. Thus, they cannot be enchanted further and must adhere to this class's progression. This is one of the main reasons that I feel the balance of this class is balanced. You may be able to become other prestige classes that have a full BAB progression too, and even with more spells per day, but do not get the class features this one gets. So, this class's dilemma is how to make sure that

1. the spellcasting remains effective
2. the combat options it gives are useful
3. its weapons are not disregarded by enchanted weapons, albeit at a cost

I am just wondering if you could give an example of a progression that this greatly overcomes. For example a sorcerer/eldritch knight would also be very effective against an illusionary weapons master with armor possibilities. Even a cleric, which is a base class, remains somewhat good in the light of this class. --Green Dragon (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2013 (MST)

The spellcasting of this class remains effective enough (although most spellcasting prestige classes do not have 7/10 rather 10/10, 9/10 or mixed 20/10, all which are far superior to this progression. It remains effective because

1. it boosts the illusions a member of this class can cast and
2. it gives enough of a progression to make a member of this class's spellcasting effective into epic levels too (see example NPC).

We debated switching the spellcasting to 5/10 but the only problem there is an epic progression (already the example NPC loses two feats to enable epic spells, which is a lot). The combat options it gives are useful, but not overly so because

1. it gives highly party-dependent features, notably mass stuns and mass spell effects that make the entire party more effective
2. it is able to use its illusions in combat, albeit at a cost of feats (again the feats that a member of this class sacrifices are worthwhile, although also costly in one's progression).

The weapons are focused on performing to one's combat expectations while taking into account a spellcaster's lowered BAB and combat aptitude. They provide a medium of sorts so that classes like the rogue would switch to using illusion weapons and not feel powerless while still providing adequate combat capabilities. Notably they provide heightened damage albeit in lieu of other enhancements (like flaming burst, etc) for decreased level-dependent bonuses notably a critical modifier, attack bonuses. --Green Dragon (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2013 (MST)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because dome wordings seemed to be sub par - why give a free action ability that negates quicken spell when you could just make it a swift action? Clearer and nearly the same - I left it because I figured it allows swift action activation/suppression of Light but not a quickened spell, which might be what you meant to do. Another confusing point was the "as Total Concealment" part - does this mean they attack as if in total concealment, or do they just have a miss chance? Small other nitpicks, overall good. --R2d2go (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2013 (MST)

My intention was for just the miss chance, but if you can talk you DM into letting you attack with concealment, go for it. The intent is to work like displacement. --Salasay Δ 18:35, 6 November 2013 (MST)

Yes, and as such it is worded like displacement is except for the duration.

The reason it is a free action is so that he can also use bright blade as a swift action in the same round so that he may summon his weapons and then make other class features useable through bright blade (since a few are dependent on that feature). --Green Dragon (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2013 (MST)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it appears to be well hyperlinked, filled out and formatted. --R2d2go (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2013 (MST)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because flavour wise, it is quite interesting - a battle with one of these would be much more... colourful than a standard encounter. --R2d2go (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2013 (MST)

Credit

Here's where i thank people who helped make this class:

Green Dragon, thanks for putting the time in to make all the necessary minor (and major) adjustments, and for putting up with me for a good... wow, almost a year.

SgtLion, thanks for putting me on track to fixing it up (this is the third time I've thanked you). Please, everyone go and look what it was like originally. I'll wait while you laugh hysterically.

Zau, thank you for acting as a sounding bored (spelling intentional) for the class.

67.246.21.92, (who is TOTALLY NOT one of the many IP addresses that I work from, TOTALLY wasn't my primary IP prior to creating an account, and TOTALLY IS NOT located downstairs in the kitchen) thanks for making the class.

Your quite welcome. Thanks for all your hard work on this class too. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2013 (MST)

I hate to be that guy but...

Semi-real means will save to negate/half-damage. ANYONE with true-sight(few and far between of course)should take half or no damage from these attacks. The weapons should(In my opinion and the 3 groups I play with; grand total 17 people) start as will-save at the first few levels to negate damage(each hit) then will save for 1/4th damage then 1/2 then your illusions become real(no will save to negate or lessen the blow) otherwise as one of my friends suggested 1d8 for medium weapons like a longsword but if the opponent makes his will-save then 1d6 or 1d4=1d2 for light and 1d10=1d8 for large weapons like greatswords or (my ex's thoughts on the matter) that it would be good to just force half damage no matter what on a save, unless you take blahblah feat then full damage no more saves. Otherwise Amazing job.

Good point, but "semi-real" still means that the illusions are more "there" than a normal illusion. So if you were to make a floor out of the "semi-real" illusion, you could walk on it fine, but you would still feel a draft from below. Basicly, knowing that it isn't actually real would not help you any because it is kind-of real. I originally had it where there was a will save for half of the bonus force damage (im not sure where it went), so you could use DC 10 + class level + Cha mod. Thank you for commenting. --Salasay Δ 10:38, 14 December 2013 (MST)

This is a good point of debate for this class, and continuing this debate point is entirely encouraged here. I have it act like a normal weapon in combat because it seems like a good solution to the juggling of this feature.

1. It is a Supernatural ability, and per the Su ruleset it may have a save or not have one.
2. It is the primary attack of an illusionary weapons master, and its balance compares to a melee or ranged attack in its effectiveness.
3. Multiple other class features use the illusionary weapons master Illusion Weapon as a starting point for their applicability.

The departing point for the solution to this class feature's balance was to streamline gameplay more. Number 1 could have gone either way. Number 2 remained most effective as a direct melee-like attack, which compares to a weapon's enhancement or other magical melee enhancements. Number 3 is best with a melee type attack, and then other Spell-Like abilities that require saves etc. Since mixing and mashing the attack within itself would lead to a much less streamlined gameplay and also some balance considerations, I aired on the side of making it like a standard melee attack with other Sp ability options in their own right. --Green Dragon (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2013 (MST)

Rating

Balance - 5/5 I give this class a burrito because <It shows good strength at low levels and high without being broken.> --Artix Von Kreiger (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2013 (MST)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a @#$% in a box because <It was worded so even a dlsexyic like myself could read it.> --Artix Von Kreiger (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2013 (MST)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class the red pill because <It was formatted perfectly. Especially compared to some of the other "classes" on this site> --Artix Von Kreiger (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2013 (MST)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a box of LOLcats <It tasted quite nice... 10/10 would eat again.> --Artix Von Kreiger (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2013 (MST)

Heh heh.

See, I only play 5e, but this is a very interesting class. I don't suppose you've ever thought about making a 5e variant? Like, keep this one, but translate it into 5e? Flamestarter (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2019 (MST)Flamestarter

There is the Illusionary Weapons Master (5e Subclass) page. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2019 (MST)

I have considered it, but 5e isn't as geared towards Prestige Classes (I'm not even sure if it has them) and I'm not quite as familiar with 5e balance. It might tool well into a straight up class, though. --Salasay ♄ 11:52, 22 November 2019 (MST)