@nostupidquestions Roleplaying aside, is there a point in Gnomes and Spell Focus (Illusion) in core DnD 3.5? There seems to be a dearth of relevant useful illusion spells.

@dnd @nostupidquestions Roleplaying aside, is there a point in Gnomes and Spell Focus (Illusion) in core DnD 3.5? There seems to be a dearth of relevant useful illusion spells.
Sorry. I don't know if it's proper here since I can't read the rules since my IP or country seems to be blocked. I've only heard Whisper Gnomes being cheesy but that's not core and I don't think what makes him work are part of core or at least the whole SRD either.

4 comments

It's a matter of opinion, honestly.
3.5 illusion spells are kinda unbalanced compared to other schools. There's some really good ones, with some really bad ones, and not much in between.
Or, that's what some people think.
Others see illusion as a very versatile school that takes skill as a player to make optimum use of, but when that's the case it can be the most potent school.
With that in mind, a gnome illusionist in early game is going to have a nice edge from the racial fe at. If they stack more spell focus, even if it's just 1 more, a +2 to DC can be a major benefit even in the high teen levels.
I've had a player run a gnome illusionist, and it can be a fun class/race combo. A lot of layered fakery, distractions, controls. You use the class right, and you can control a battlefield with almost no risk. Since the will save on most illusion spells is opposed by wizards and clerics rather well, a point or two to the DC can be enough to dominate combat. If you can befuddle the ones most likely to see right through your efforts, the rest have way less chance.
But, you'd only benefit if you went that route. Illusion as a school has other aspects, and the trickery side of things might not be what you want, so taking Gnome only because if the free spell focus wouldn't do much
- Original comment:
  I agree with all of this under the caveat that your DM interpretation of the "what constitutes interaction" in 5e can also have more influence on your success than clever or clumsy play. DMs I've played with have varied from very loose discussions about their concerns for balance to self crippling houserules that wind up with illusionist NPCs failing to do anything because of a broomstick and blanket being flailed at them by a fighter. Specifically speak with the DM running the game and come to a common understanding before you start. Find out how interactions and passive checks will work against your illusions ahead of time in that game!
  Edit because I'm turning into a lich and forgetting which editions we're talking about:
  Major Illusion, Hallucinatory Terrain, and Greater invisibility are amazing staples of illusion and you can look to Shadow Evocation and Shadow Conjuration as patches for any missing features a wizard should have in your party. Other than that I think... take standard wizard spells and ban schools based on your party if you have the chance to plan with them. Also consider the synergy that lies (enchantment) can have with misdirection and see if you can fill that role or support your local lying bard/rogue/beguiler.
  Illusion for gnomes in 3.5 invariably leads to talking about their shadow magic prestige class from Races of Stone and the ability to change what disbelief entails as well as cast evocation and conjurations as shadowy illusion that become more and more real as you progress. This is amazing for high powered campaigns but personally I recommend house ruling metamagic level out of the %realism formula. This prestige class is in no way necessary though as illusion rocks and gets license to make memorable scenes in ways other spell schools don't!
  
  I wouldn't know much about 5e in general, and I genuinely appreciate that information.
  I've only ever run a few games, and played 5e twice. 3.5 is/was a bit more "punchy" with illusions from what I've read (and that's what the post asked about).
  
  I should have read more carefully, thanks for catching! I'll edit and add something on topic.