Illusionist as a Wizard "scheme"?

[The Shadow]

Rogues have schemes, clerics have domains... Perhaps wizards should have 'schools'.

I don't think the existing schools of magic are broad and interesting enough. Wizard 'schools' should be based on common, flavorful archetypes; we don't need to go all completionist and insist on abjurers or whatever.

The Illusionist, the Necromancer, and the Summoner all qualify, I think. (With 'Illusionist' understood in the 1e sense of including a lot of enchantment and shadow spells.) Possibly also a Thaumaturge, who specializes in flashy magic, no subtle mind stuff.

A 'school' would give access to a unique list of spells, much as cleric domains do. There could, of course, be some overlap, and some spells would be common to all wizards. (Detect Magic is the most obvious example.)

It's interesting to ask how a standard generalist mage would be done in this system. Would there be a Generalist school which gives some basic spells from each of the other schools, but none of the really good stuff? Or does each school automatically get access to minor stuff from other schools, unless it's especially ruled out? (I don't want to see Illusionists with blasting spells, that misses the whole point.)

 

[jadrax]

Well I don't know about Illusionist, but Mike Mearls confirmed the Necromancer theme this morning on twitter.

'Most themes will be class independent, but there will be some exceptions. Necromancer = divine or arcane caster.'

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I guess, as magic user is a theme, specialist will also be.

I believe however, that rogue schemes should be backgrounds. (maybe with a little reduced utility for non-rogues)

 

[Li Shenron]

I think this idea is quite a no-brainer

But I wouldn't want wizards scheme to be in addition to the current wizard class, because it would probably make it a bit too powerful (assuming every other character stays the same).

Maybe using Themes will work just fine, even tho it would require the character to be a spellcaster before taking such themes.

Then of course, being a specialist it's more about known spell selection. I've always said that in 3ed when I want to make a specialist wizard I just pick a lot of spells matching my school, and ignore the wizard specialization rules. I don't always understand why people needed so much specialization rules for spellcasters...

 

[The Shadow]

I don't think it's good for specialization to always be a theme, because then it locks out other themes. Now, we did hear that there will be specialized "advanced themes", but I do hope there's a way to do it out of the gate.

Wizard schools, as I see them, would both open up and close off possibilities - they would not add to the wizard's power.

Li Shenron, I just don't want to see supposed Illusionists casting Fireball. That's just wrong.

 

[The Shadow]

Double post, sigh.

 

[SkidAce]

Then of course, being a specialist it's more about known spell selection. I've always said that in 3ed when I want to make a specialist wizard I just pick a lot of spells matching my school, and ignore the wizard specialization rules. I don't always understand why people needed so much specialization rules for spellcasters...

+1 for cosmic truth!

 

[Kzach]

I absolutely agree.

I've said it elsewhere that I think that schemes are a great idea but that all classes should get a version of it. Schemes for rogues, schools for wizards, domains for clerics.

What's more, the fighter shouldn't get two themes and instead should just get their own version of a scheme.

 

[Remathilis]

To be honest, I thought that's what the point of themes were.

That said, I got no problem with with some classes having customization. Rogues have schemes, clerics domains, wizards have schools, fighters should get something (training? tactics?)

 

[Stormonu]

Wizards should have traditions, instead of schools. Traditions could then go beyond mere schools - pacts, thaumaturgy, necromancy, binder, truenaming, incarnum, etc.