# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  Improving Illusionist's Bracers

## Segev

It is pretty well agreed, I think, that the Ravnica item Illusionist's Bracero are overpowered and also badly designed because they don't even do what the text says they were made to do.

I found myself thinking about them when trying to figure out a good way to make something invisible at the same time as an illusion of it appears, whether by direct casting or Malleable Illusions. So I had several ideas for more "Illusionist-themed" abilities to give them, and wondered if anybody else had any ideas, or comments on mine. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but also could be in any combination or alone. 

(requires atunement by an illusionist) You may use Malleable Illusions as a bonus action, if you have that class feature. (Alternatively, once on each of your turns without using an action.)You can concentrate on two illusion spells at once. If your concentration is broken, it breaks for both of them. You may voluntarily release one without releasing the other, however.You may have up to two _minor illusion_ spells active at a time.You may reduce the casting time of _invisibility_ and _greater invisibility_ to a bonus action. If the only other spell you cast on the same turn is an illusion, this ignores the usual restriction on casting only a cantrip as your action if you cast a bonus action spell.You may reduce the casting time of any illusion spell that has a casting time of one action to a bonus action. If the only other spell you cast on the same turn is an illusion, this ignores the usual restriction on casting only a cantrip as your action if you cast a bonus action spell.

In this brainstorming stage, I am mostly interested in which of these are too powerful on their own or in combination, and what rarity an item with them alone or in combination might have.

I am kind-of leaning towards either the bonus action illusions and Malleable Illusions, XOR the bonus action invisibility spells and maybe the ability to concentrate on two illusions at once. Might add the dual minor illusions to the second option if that isn't too much.

----------


## Chronos

Of course, the original Magic card the item was based on was also overpowered, and also didn't have  much connection to illusions...

----------


## Burley

I'm so torn. 

I think being able to maintain two illusions at once is really powerful, but doesn't feel broken. There's a LOT a clever player can do with it. 

Being able to cast two illusions in one turn, though? Erf.... That's a bit much. Breaking action economy always makes me antsy. Looking over the spell list, I can't justify being _opposed_ to it, because there's not really a crazy one-turn combo. Still, with those clever players, you giver 'em an inch, they're think they're a ruler.

----------


## Bobthewizard

I like the first three points - BA malleable illusions, concentrate on two illusion spells, and have two minor illusions active. Those are cool, increase the options as a fight goes on, and are still limited by action economy in terms of changing them. 

I don't care for the last two, because they are a straight power increase without much flavor. It's a first turn upgrade without giving the player more to do on later turns. Let them take a couple rounds setting up multiple illusions. I also don't like the fact that they negate the mislead spell which does exactly what you were asking for in the first post.

----------


## RSP

Doubling up on Illusion spells is very powerful. This essentially allows 2 castings of:

Hypnotic Pattern
Fear
Phantasmal Force
Silence
Silent/Minor/Major Image
Mirror Image
Shadow Blade
(Greater) Invis

Also, any straight cutting of casting time allows Simulacrum cast as a BA, so Id word it along the lines of any spell with a casting time of 1 Action, can be cast as a BA.

----------


## Segev

> I'm so torn. 
> 
> I think being able to maintain two illusions at once is really powerful, but doesn't feel broken. There's a LOT a clever player can do with it. 
> 
> Being able to cast two illusions in one turn, though? Erf.... That's a bit much. Breaking action economy always makes me antsy. Looking over the spell list, I can't justify being _opposed_ to it, because there's not really a crazy one-turn combo. Still, with those clever players, you giver 'em an inch, they're think they're a ruler.


Yeah, breaking the "one concentration" limit at all seems dangerous. But I also have trouble seeing it as being TOO broken. 

What inspired this idea at all was the desire to do things like make an object invisible and create a _major image_ of it at the same time, and then having an illusion pick up the illusory object. Especially easy with Malleable Illusions, adding the illusory item to the illusion of a creature that picks it up as you make the object invisible.

Now, _mislead_ does this for you, personally, though not as well as I might like in 5e. But being able to do it in general seems like something a dedicated illusionist will often want to do.

----------


## RSP

> Now, _mislead_ does this for you, personally, though not as well as I might like in 5e. But being able to do it in general seems like something a dedicated illusionist will often want to do.


Pet Peeve of mine from Mislead:

It doesnt allow a Stealth role, so, even though it makes the caster Invisible, it doesnt necessarily negate everyone knowing that theyre still there (even though theres an illusion of them as well).

Not to rehash horribly written hidding rules, but Mislead could fall under ineffective spell under the assumption that not hiding via Stealth, means everyone still knows where you are (particularly since you just cast a spell. 

Im all for Mislead allowing the caster to also remain hidden, just pointing out that the spell, RAW, doesnt cover it.

----------


## Segev

> Pet Peeve of mine from Mislead:
> 
> It doesnt allow a Stealth role, so, even though it makes the caster Invisible, it doesnt necessarily negate everyone knowing that theyre still there (even though theres an illusion of them as well).
> 
> Not to rehash horribly written hidding rules, but Mislead could fall under ineffective spell under the assumption that not hiding via Stealth, means everyone still knows where you are (particularly since you just cast a spell. 
> 
> Im all for Mislead allowing the caster to also remain hidden, just pointing out that the spell, RAW, doesnt cover it.


I think the saving grace here is that the DM is always free to decide that a check is called for, or whether a creature is hidden. So he could rule that you only need to hide when you move away, or that you can make a dexterity(stealth)check when you move to time it with your illusion's movement as a non-action to hide your stepping-sounds. But that is all very much on the DM to decide, and the spell doesn't specifically call for it, so a DM could also make it dysfunctional by making it obvious you're there since you can't hide. You could keep the illusion on top of you until your next turn and hide then, then finally move it off of your location, but ugh.

----------


## Bobthewizard

> Yeah, breaking the "one concentration" limit at all seems dangerous. But I also have trouble seeing it as being TOO broken. 
> 
> What inspired this idea at all was the desire to do things like make an object invisible and create a _major image_ of it at the same time, and then having an illusion pick up the illusory object. Especially easy with Malleable Illusions, adding the illusory item to the illusion of a creature that picks it up as you make the object invisible.
> 
> Now, _mislead_ does this for you, personally, though not as well as I might like in 5e. But being able to do it in general seems like something a dedicated illusionist will often want to do.


There is some precedent for double concentration. Twin metamagic and enchanters at level 10 get a limited version of it, albeit with the same spell. 

If you want to give this specific ability, you could instead of allowing double concentration on all illusion spells give something like the following ability. "Whenever you use a spell slot to cast an illusion spell requiring concentration, you can immediately expend a 2nd level spell slot to cast invisibility on yourself, if you have it prepared. This casting of invisibility does not require any components or concentration, but the invisibility spell ends when the initial spell ends." This gives you the two spells at the same time, but limits it to invisibility.

----------


## sithlordnergal

Eh? How are the base Illusionist Bracers OP? They require attunement and let you use your Bonus Action to cast a Cantrip. Given you get the same effect if you take a Feat or dip into Sorcerer, its really not that powerful. Heck, the only class that really goes ham with it are Eldritch Blast users, though again, you get the same effect from a pretty easy multiclass. Though I do agree they don't actually do what you'd think they do, given their name.

As for the changes, I think they're mostly balanced. I'd make the following changes:


1) Any Spellcaster can attune to it instead of restricting it to a single Wizard Subclass. Since there are technically no "Illusionists" outside of Illusionist Wizard. If you don't have Malleable Illusions, you don't gain the benefits of the first bullet point.

2) Get rid of the 4th bullet point. There's no need to reduce the casting time of invisibility and greater invisibility to a bonus action when you have the ability to reduce the casting time of any illusion spell to a Bonus Action in the 5th bullet point. 

3) Speaking of the 5th bullet point, keep the ability to make any 1 Action illusion spell you cast a Bonus Action, but remove the bit that lets you ignore the restrictions on Bonus Action Spellcasting. There are a lot of powerful Illusion spells out there, and this item already lets you double up on them.

Being able to ignore the Bonus Action Spellcasting restrictions would allow a single player to cast something like Shadowblade with their Bonus Action, followed by Fear.

----------


## Chronos

A sorcerer or sorcerer multiclass can cast spells as a bonus action, a few times per day.  Illusionist's Bracers does it _at will_.  That's a huge difference.  Nothing else even gets close to the resourceless damage of a warlock with illusionist's bracers.

----------


## sithlordnergal

> A sorcerer or sorcerer multiclass can cast spells as a bonus action, a few times per day.  Illusionist's Bracers does it _at will_.  That's a huge difference.  Nothing else even gets close to the resourceless damage of a warlock with illusionist's bracers.


I mean, I don't really see it as being that huge of a difference. It only becomes super powerful if its used by a Warlock. And even then...I'm ok with Warlocks having a ton of resourceless damage since I feel they don't really have many resources to begin with.

----------


## Chronos

Warlocks already have good resourceless damage, at least close to that of the classes that don't have any resources at all.  Plus they do get resources; six-ish castings a day of high-level spells.  With Illusionist's Bracers, they have at-will damage that's well above mundanes, and also still have their resources on top of that.

----------


## sithlordnergal

> Warlocks already have good resourceless damage, at least close to that of the classes that don't have any resources at all.  Plus they do get resources; six-ish castings a day of high-level spells.  With Illusionist's Bracers, they have at-will damage that's well above mundanes, and also still have their resources on top of that.


They have decent resourceless damage, but again, I don't think the Illusionist Bracers causes it to spike that badly. It does increase, sure, but I'd say its in line with other casters, and things like Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master And no, they really don't have that many resources. 2 spell slots per short rest till level 11 isn't a lot, even if they cast their spells at the highest level. The tradeoff is not worth it.

----------


## JNAProductions

> They have decent resourceless damage, but again, I don't think the Illusionist Bracers causes it to spike that badly. It does increase, sure, but I'd say its in line with other casters, and things like Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master And no, they really don't have that many resources. 2 spell slots per short rest till level 11 isn't a lot, even if they cast their spells at the highest level. The tradeoff is not worth it.


*Level 11 Fighter*
20 Strength, GWF, PAM, GWM, using a +1 Glaive.
They deal 3d10+1d4+24 damage at +10 to-hit without GWM on. Since they reroll 1s and 2s, the dice average to 6.3 (1d10) and 3 (1d4).
Increase damage by 3.3 if they crit or kill on the main action, due to the final attack being 1d10+6 instead of 1d4+6.
They deal 3d10+1d4+64 if they turn GWM on, reducing their hit bonus to +5.

*Level 11 Warlock*
20 Charisma, Agonizing Blast.
They deal 3d10+15 damage at +9 to-hit, as an action.
With Bracers, they can do that as a bonus action too.

*Spoiler: Against AC X Table*
Show

*AC*
*DPR (GWM Off)*
*DPR (GWM ON)*
*Warlock (No Bracers)*
*Warlock (Bracers)*

10
44
69.1
29.9
59.9

11
44
64.8
29.9
59.9

12
44
60.5
28.4
56.7

13
41.8
56.2
26.8
53.6

14
39.5
51.8
25.2
50.4

15
37.2
47.5
23.6
47.3

16
35
43.2
22.1
44.1

17
32.6
38.9
20.5
41

18
30.4
34.6
18.9
37.8

19
28
30.2
17.3
34.7

20
25.7
25.9
15.8
31.5





Note that, at level 11, a Fighter has a single extra ASI compared to a Warlock, but requires two more feats and is limited to melee. And with all that... The Fighter is doing MAYBE 20% more damage, if the enemy is easy to hit.
Once AC hits 16, the Fighter does WORSE than the Warlock, while having invested more resources and being forced into melee.

----------


## verybad

> *Level 11 Fighter*
> *Spoiler: Against AC X Table*
> Show
> 
> *AC*
> *DPR (GWM Off)*
> *DPR (GWM ON)*
> *Warlock (No Bracers)*
> *Warlock (Bracers)*
> ...


Interesting calculations. So, in the optimum scenario for GWM in that table, GWM is a roughly 50% increase in damage. Bracers is (obviously) 100% in all cases. The comparison is hardly apples-to-apples in the sense that GWM is a feat and the bracers are a very rare magic item, but it does show that the bracers have a much larger effect on a warlocks damage output than the feat has on a fighters. If we wanted to compare magic items, a fairer comparison would be between a +3 weapon, belt of fire giant strenght or a flame tongue and the bracers, but that obviously wasnt the claim you were responding to. Still, the math on that would be interesting.

As a side note, doing a quick calculation, PAM doesnt seem to add that much damage over a greatsword with GWF at level 11: a regular greatsword does 8.33*3 + 3 * 5 = 40 damage, assuming all attacks hit. Equalize for +1 enchantment bonus, and youre only 1 point behind PAM+glaive. Of course, pre-11, the difference is much larger,  PAM has other benefits as well, and a fighter doesnt have that many sources of good bonus actions or reactions available either.

----------

