>If your beef is with the generic illusion rules (Illusory Sight etc) then
>you must remember they have the advantage of _flexibility_.
>Most of the Illusion spells known by Eurmali would not be the Illusory
>Sight, Substance etc given in the rulebook but more like the quirky
>spells (become pile of dung) given in GoG.
Unfortunately I agree with you both that the standard Illusion spells are more flexible, and that the Eurmali generally have the more specific ones. I say unfortunately because it is far from satisfactory to me. It does help resolve the game balance question a little (but still expensive for so limited an effect) but at the price of taking most of the fun out of it.
You see, the problem with the combined illusions is that unless you make them pretty broad, a lot of the creative potential disappears, or is put back to the GM to make. The GM gets to think of neat things to do with illusions, and offer them as individual spells when he feels the urge to be nice to his tricksters.
Which is definately worse for game fun than giving the flexible spells to the tricksters PCs themselves (or Donandar or whatever), and letting them do the creative stuff. I could explain why in detail, but I would hope it would be mostly obvious.
Some of my favourite moments in gaming have been through creative use of illusions, for both stylish and silly play.
For example in a Shadowrun game where I was a player, at one stage we were being chased by the police, and threw them off by a simple illusion of a small child running onto the road chasing their ball in front of them.
I'm coming to the conclusion that the good illusionists must all be
sorcerers, who at least have multispell (that outa 'cause some comment :-))
David
Computing Officer |" Life is easily understood as bit strings of logical
Arts Faculty UWA |depth greater than their length" - Rebis, Doom Patrol
davidc_at_cs.uwa.edu.au |" Do not think, HIT, it is our way" - Milk & Cheese
>Microsoft, meanwhile, denies that the problem exists.
Powered by hypermail