Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 802287" data-attributes="member: 1465">I don't have problems with the current Wizard spell list and the specialisation rules, but I agree that you can make a specialist in Illusion who prepares only 1 spell/level from the school, and the rest from e.g. Evocation; you are still called an Illusionist by the rules but you're very much something else.I think the list is one only because they wanted to still have one single Wizard class, to make it both simple and flexible. Imagine you wanted to be a major in Illusion, with minor in Necromancy, because somehow you have found a good concept for your PC. If every mage had his own spell list, you couldn't do that, unless it was possible to multiclass Wizards of different specialization, which basically would mean like they were different classes.I agree with you that it would be much more flavorful to have more unique abilities for specialists, and even unique spells, maybe you can design specific feats for specialists only... Personally, I think you are an Illusionist if you cast Illusions and use them as a regular strategy, doesn't matter much if by the rule you are something else (and I think the most relevant consequence of specialisation rules come from the banned school, not the favored), which means that is it totally up to the players, for good or bad.I have more concern with the Clerics, which have a similarly too long list and a very much more serious flavorlessness: they know ALL the spells from the list.</blockquote>

Verification