D&D 5E Specialist wizards: Has anything been mentioned?

[MoonSong]

You don't think they could find a couple that almost nobody ever really played? I think they could.

mmm... evoker? (abjurer is almost likely a thing, so Illussionist and Necromancer, conjurer is popular, Diviner is a strong archetype, transmuter had its thing too. Already seen the enchanter...)

I still don't get this almost fetish to get as little as possible in the phb. Providing the eight subclasses for wizard cannot take more than a pair of folios, four-five pages isn't too much, it is a single class, a single spell-list.

 

[Mistwell]

mmm... evoker? (abjurer is almost likely a thing, so Illussionist and Necromancer, conjurer is popular, Diviner is a strong archetype, transmuter had its thing too. Already seen the enchanter...)

I'd be fine if they pushed divination (divine class?) and transmutation (sorcerer?) to other spellcasting classes.

 

[MoonSong]

I'd be fine if they pushed divination (divine class?) and transmutation (sorcerer?) to other spellcasting classes.

I'm always up for taking away wizards toys, but school specialization makes no sense for sorcerers, sorcerers are more about a leitmotif (if they have one), schools are too intellectual a thing for them. (Though having a cleric of fate and destiny sounds cool). But again I think they can make room for all eight schools, a $50 book should(must?) have enough room.

 

[Falling Icicle]

What we have not seen is a Generalist Wizard.

Do we really need a "generalist" wizard? It seems to me like the whole point for there being generalists before was that being a specialist came with penalties, and the generalist option was for people who didn't want those penalties. But now, being a specialist doesn't come with any restricted schools. That said, I'm sure we'll eventually see wizard subclasses that aren't about specializing in one of the 8 schools of magic.

If they don't put all 8 specialties in at launch, they'll have a riot on their hands. Wizards have had 8 specialties for dozens of years (before 4e). It's not just mechanics, its woven into the setting and philosophy of pre-4e spellcasting. If you notice, the current spells still use all 8 schools. Not providing specialists for all 8 of them would be a travesty.

If most classes are going to have 2-3 subclasses, for wizards to have 8 or 9 would be seen by many as showing that class a great deal of favoritism. I'm hoping to at least see the enchanter, evoker, illusionist and necromancer. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if they had all 8 specialist types in the PHB, but I don't expect them to.

I'd be fine if they pushed divination (divine class?) and transmutation (sorcerer?) to other spellcasting classes.

Those two schools contain the majority of the wizard's utility spells, and some of their most iconic spells (haste, polymorph, scrying, etc.). Wizards shouldn't be put on the chopping block just to make other classes feel better.

 

[Mistwell]

Those two schools contain the majority of the wizard's utility spells, and some of their most iconic spells (haste, polymorph, scrying, etc.). Wizards shouldn't be put on the chopping block just to make other classes feel better.

I didn't say anything about axing them as spells for mages, I said push the specialization in them to other classes.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I didn't say anything about axing them as spells for mages, I said push the specialization in them to other classes.

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Do we really need a "generalist" wizard? It seems to me like the whole point for there being generalists before was that being a specialist came with penalties, and the generalist option was for people who didn't want those penalties. But now, being a specialist doesn't come with any restricted schools. That said, I'm sure we'll eventually see wizard subclasses that aren't about specializing in one of the 8 schools of magic.

It's not just about mechanical aspects, it's also a role-playing thing. Specializing in a school says something different than choosing not to specialize. We'll basically have a setting change if being a wizard now means you are forced to specialize.

If most classes are going to have 2-3 subclasses, for wizards to have 8 or 9 would be seen by many as showing that class a great deal of favoritism. I'm hoping to at least see the enchanter, evoker, illusionist and necromancer. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if they had all 8 specialist types in the PHB, but I don't expect them to.

I suppose you're right that the favoritism perception could be a problem. It sounds like fighter will have at least 4 subclasses (warrior, weaponmaster, warlord, gish). Cleric really needs several to cover all their domains. If you can't represent a cleric of every traditional human and demi-human deity with at least one of the domains in the PHB, it's a big problem.

I don't really see the favoritism issue stopping them though. I think they've generally figured out what they are doing and aren't doing too bad at it. If they do neglect to have all the schools, it will be an uncharacteristically horrible design decision for Next.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'd be fine if they pushed divination (divine class?) and transmutation (sorcerer?) to other spellcasting classes.

I thought the thing about Sorcerer's is that they didn't study magic, it just came naturally. As such how could they specialize to study something? Ditto Divine Classes to a degree. These spell casters are 'specialized' already in the sense of how they get their power. A wizard on the other hand chooses to specialize in a particular academic field of study.

 

[Mistwell]

I thought the thing about Sorcerer's is that they didn't study magic, it just came naturally. As such how could they specialize to study something?

They don't have to specialize in the study of it, just in the doing of it.

 

[Falling Icicle]

It's not just about mechanical aspects, it's also a role-playing thing. Specializing in a school says something different than choosing not to specialize. We'll basically have a setting change if being a wizard now means you are forced to specialize.

Good point. I remember them having an "academic" wizard in an older playtest packet that could prepare additional spells and such. Do you think that could work for a "generalist" wizard?

I suppose you're right that the favoritism perception could be a problem. It sounds like fighter will have at least 4 subclasses (warrior, weaponmaster, warlord, gish). Cleric really needs several to cover all their domains. If you can't represent a cleric of every traditional human and demi-human deity with at least one of the domains in the PHB, it's a big problem.

I don't really see the favoritism issue stopping them though. I think they've generally figured out what they are doing and aren't doing too bad at it. If they do neglect to have all the schools, it will be an uncharacteristically horrible design decision for Next.

Apparently the PHB is going to cost $50. Considering that, yes, they should have every specialist school, several cleric domains, etc. Pathfinder's book was that much but included the DM guide in it. If we're going to pay that much for just the PHB, they can afford a few more pages of class options.