How easy is it to tell an illusionist from a mage?

[Brickman]

Now a general mage (let's say an NPC under DM control) is going to be really savvy about the differences between illusion magic and other schools of magic. I think in a case like this, especially if the mage may be an antagonist, the illusionist is better off obscuring his true nature if at all possible.

I won't go too far off on a tangent here, because it probably deserves its own thread, but a thought occurred to me while reading this. Illusionists can cast other spells besides illusions, except from their opposing necromancy school. Mages can cast illusions. Let me say that again. Mages can cast illusions. Do you see where I'm going here? Again, this is probably better for another thread, but how does one distinguish the efficacy of an illusionist's illusions vs. a generalist mage's illusions? One specializes in them, and the other merely has access to them. Anyone ever thought about that?

I agree this needs its own thread. You make an excellent point, and prompted me to reevaluate my opinion here. So just how easy is it to tell an illusionist from a mage? Let me recap some of your points and add some source material from the Core Rules CD (we are talking 2e now right?). Forgive me as I think out loud... er, in writing...

1. Illusionists can cast other spells besides illusions, except from their opposing necromancy school. Mages can cast illusions. How does one distinguish the efficacy of an illusionist's illusions vs. a generalist mage's illusions? One specializes in them, and the other merely has access to them.

2. NWP -- Spellcraft -- Although this proficiency does not grant the character any spellcasting powers, it does give him familiarity with the different forms and rites of spellcasting. If he observes and overhears someone who is casting a spell, or if he examines the material components used, he can attempt to identify the spell being cast. A proficiency check must be rolled to make a correct identification. Wizard specialists gain a +3 bonus to the check when attempting to identify magic of their own school. Note that since the spellcaster must be observed until the very instant of casting, the spellcraft proficiency does not grant an advantage against combat spells. The proficiency is quite useful, however, for identifying spells that would otherwise have no visible effect... [some other stuff]

So some mages will find it easier than others to identify spells cast by others. But just because someone can tell a wizard is casting illusions, can they tell if the caster is in fact an Illusionist? No, not for sure - I don't think so. It would take several observations to see if the majority of the spells are illusions so the observer could make an educated (but still uncertain) guess.

Now, what about a situation where the illusionist happens to be 'exposed' in public - say in a small town. Everyone learns the illusionist's identity and that he can be effectively disbelieved when weaving (at least some of) his magic. Surely anyone the illusionist cheats, games, scares, intimidates, etc with magic will have people in town motivated to expose him or to at least discover his weaknesses. To rephrase, if I was the DM I would make sure NPC's would be doing this. Let's just pretend that the exposure happens and not dwell on how right now though.

So now, not fearing exposure but having to deal with it, it would behoove the illusionist to disguise himself and his nature in the future - at least while moving through this town. Or in case he meets anyone that has passed through the town and heard the story. Again, if I was the DM I'd make sure the story got around the local area.

I'm not really trying to make any point. I'm just thinking out loud about this issue. Thoughts?

[Mira]

From a 2E perspective, there really isn't much of a difference between the two, an illusionist isn't any different than any other specialist mage, an enchanter or transmuter for example. It was in 1E where they were quite different, having access to completely different spell lists. (with some overlap, but not a lot) There knowing whether someone was an illusionist or a mage might mean something, in 2E I don't think it's really that much of a distinction.

I'm looking forward to see how the upcoming Illusionist's Handbook handles things, illusion has always been hard to adjucate properly IMO. There's nothing spelled out about the limits of what you can and can't do with a single spell. I've had to argue with someone who wanted to use Phantasmal Force to create a 10-dice fireball, saying that why couldn't it be that? Does a 10 die fireball look different than a 5 die fireball?

I think they were spelled out a little better in the 1E descriptions than in the 2E ones, but they still left a lot of wiggle room. of course that fireball thing was even dicier back then when Phantasmal Force was a 1st level spell for Illusionists, (3rd level for mages). The shadow magic and demi-shadow magic spells were quite useful in 1E, and unavailable to mages. they were they illusionist ways to duplicate fireballs (which they couldn't cast) and such, and it was spelled out. I hope more of what illusion can and can't do is detailed when the product comes together

Mira (Si hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter educatus et nimis ropinquus ades" Translation: If you can read this bumper sticker, you are both very well educated and much too close)