How Should Specialist Wizards be handled?

[Kobold Avenger]

From 3e and 2e, for the most part not being a Specialist Wizard was a substandard choice. Some of the splatbooks tried to make Generalists more appealing, but for the most part specialist wizards were generally better.

Pathfinder also tried to give more benefits to Generalists too.

4e, at first dropped the school specialization, but then sort of got it back in Essentials with the Mage subclass.

But one of the problems with specialty wizards was that not all arcane schools were built equally. I think you'd see Diviners and Abjurers at the bottom of the list of all specialties chosen.

But one thing that some of the editions have done later on was try to make each specialty more distinct too, and have extra benefits beyond more spells of the specialty school.

So what should be done if specialist wizards are to exist?

Base on some things that have existed in editions and some new:
Should Evokers get the ability of overcome resistances?
Should Conjurers get bonuses to their summons?
Should Necromancers get an undead/shadow companion?
Should Abjurers get heavy armour proficiency?
Diviners get more "leaderish" abilities?

 

[CM]

I think this would be a good use of a talent tree for wizards. Each school could have its own tree with options such as those you listed. You could dip into multiple trees but not get deep enough to get the really good stuff if you did so. Generalist mages could instead have their own tree with generalist-styled talents.

Of course this borrows heavily from World of Warcraft so it is obviously a terrible idea.

 

[Mercule]

1E had it right: Specialists should lose access to certain spells. Some spells should be easier (lower level) for them. They should also have access to some fairly focused spells that a generalist doesn't. Basically, I don't think you can do a proper generalist as a tweak to the core wizard. They need their own spell lists, at the very least.

I'd also be happy with a Warmage, Beguiler, etc. approach to specialists. Maybe get rid of the sorcerer and make specialists the only ones with enough focus to ditch the spell book. (Just musing, not suggesting.)

 

[hanez]

From 3e and 2e, for the most part not being a Specialist Wizard was a substandard choice. Some of the splatbooks tried to make Generalists more appealing, but for the most part specialist wizards were generally better.

Pathfinder also tried to give more benefits to Generalists too.

4e, at first dropped the school specialization, but then sort of got it back in Essentials with the Mage subclass.

But one of the problems with specialty wizards was that not all arcane schools were built equally. I think you'd see Diviners and Abjurers at the bottom of the list of all specialties chosen.

Who cares? Why does every single choice in the game have to be equal in combat?

I played hundreds of ad&d and 3e games as well as DM'd and I rarely ever saw specialists, (except for less powerful flavor wizards e.g. charmers, illusionists etc).

 

[Ahnehnois]

This is one of the things that Pathfinder did a pretty good job of. There should be a generalist wizard, who is good and playable, and specialist wizards, who lose something minor in exchange for slightly more focused abilities.

 

[CM]

Who cares? Why does every single choice in the game have to be equal in combat?

I played hundreds of ad&d and 3e games as well as DM'd and I rarely ever saw specialists, (except for less powerful flavor wizards e.g. charmers, illusionists etc).

For every anecdote there is an equal and opposite anecdote. In 2e I mostly saw invokers because enchantment was the opposition school. It sucked to lose sleep but it was worth it. In 3e I saw a few diviners, but only because they only had to choose one opposition school. Usually they were invokers or transmuters.

Combat equality is important because for those groups that want parity, it matters. Just because you choose enchantment or illusion doesn't mean you should be stuck charming barmaids or doing parlor tricks while the invoker blasts the orcs to ash. If I play a combat-heavy game I don't want to see half the specialist wizard options be sub-par choices because they can't stand up in a fight against a necromancer.

For those that don't care about balance, having parity built into the game does not impinge on their style. Learn and memorize all non-combat spells if you want, but please don't hamstring the combat ability of certain schools just because.

 

[SkidAce]

For those that don't care about balance, having parity built into the game does not impinge on their style. Learn and memorize all non-combat spells if you want, but please don't hamstring the combat ability of certain schools just because.

I actually think the specialist "fire" wizard should (only one example) out damage the "illusion" wizard.

He's throwing fire.

 

[hanez]

For those that don't care about balance, having parity built into the game does not impinge on their style. Learn and memorize all non-combat spells if you want, but please don't hamstring the combat ability of certain schools just because.

It can effect my game as designers often throw out a lot to achieve parity (see the illinusionist and necromancer in 4e)

Incidentally I think banning schools and or spells worked well enough in previous editions. Pathfinder also takes a good crack at it.

 

[CM]

I actually think the specialist "fire" wizard should (only one example) out damage the "illusion" wizard.

He's throwing fire.

Combat isn't just damage.

If your illusion causes enemies to cower in fear or attack illusory targets it can be just as effective as fire.

 

[hanez]

Combat isn't just damage.

If your illusion causes enemies to cower in fear or attack illusory targets it can be just as effective as fire.

Completely agree. But illusions, divinations and charms are harder quantify.

Im in favor of designers doing some tweaking to spells and trying to make judgement calls to balance the schools. Im am firmly opposed to them throwing out whole schools if they don't fit or transforming them to fit into a narrow view of a power scale.

Sorry, just a lil on edge and suspicious of the urge to balance ever since the last edition.