Talk:Illusionist

I'm wondering what the point is of having a separate article for illusionists. Yes, gnomes got bonuses for being specifically illusionists (in 3.0) but in every edition since at least 2nd AD&D they've been just a specific build of wizard. Why give them a separate article?

I would propose something similar to what exists already at the warlock article. A separate sub-article for each significant build of wizard, like illusionists or conjurists. Thoughts? Niirfa-sa 07:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since it is a class of its own with its own abilities differing a little bit from a normal wizard, I think an extra article is OK. Historicus 08:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * But my point is that it's not a class of its own. It's a specialized version of wizards. See the 3e, 3.5, and 4e rulebooks if you don't believe me. I'll admit I'm fuzzier when it comes to pre-3e but as far as I can tell in 2e the "class" was, once again, just a specialized version of mages (read: wizards). If someone can show me otherwise, I'm fine with that. At the moment, it just seems like illusionists are treated special because gnomes like 'em. Niirfa-sa 08:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is, that one who choses to become an illusionist will not be able to do the same things as a normal wizard. I think even wizards in character would see the difference, since they made schools, colleges wich exclusivly studyies the one kind of arcane art they had chosen as theirs, like a College of Enchantment, College of Abjuration and such things in Sshamath. The rules stuff is not important, what's important is the influence, how one would see it in the (fictional) world and if they can tell the difference and know what the chose to study. They call themselves illusionist, not wizard.Only because it is a subkind of magic, that is not a point to mingle all kinds of magic in one. Because there exists other articles with subsections which got their own "right" to have an article. For example there are articles about a place, and then there are infos about places within this place, but they also got a more detailed article for themselves. So why don't do it with this kind also? I do not think of a class as something in a rulesbook, I think of it as some kind of profession. There are people who are wizards, and such who are necromants, and others are illusionists. There are craftsman, but there are some who are bakers and others are butchers. Would you mingle them also in one article, because both are craftsman?Historicus 09:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll concede and remove the merge. I still think, both realms-wise as well as crunch-wise, that illusionists are just a particular kind of wizard but I don't want to push the issue and understand that, even by normal magical specialization, illusionists are typically considered special. So I'll remove the templates. Niirfa-sa 09:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Clean-Up
Please kindly consider slightly emphasising the "clean-up" of this article a tad bit more.

Thank you very much,

Tautological Revelations (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you please calrify? Are you simply making a joke because you find our clean-up tags intrusive? Or do you have a particular desire to learn more about the illusionist? If the latter, what questions do you have in partictular?


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Improving content in any way or form is good; little-or-small. Thank you for your input.


 * So-and-so,


 * Tautological Revelations (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand you. What did you mean by "prearticular?"


 * Acknowledged,


 * Tautological Revelations (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)