Specialists better than specialized wizards?

[Thaniel]

I've heard it said by some that Warmages are better Evocation specialists than Evocation specialists ever were. The same has been said of Beguilers and Enchantment specialists.

My question is are there any other classes such as these that do a specialist's job better than a specialist? If so, could you point them out to me? If not, I was thinking of creating some myself, unless someone else out there has already started.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I've always thought the game could use a good Summoner. Druids lack the monster spells; conjuration specialists lack the nature's ally spells.

Of course, there probably is one -- I just don't know about it.

 

[Thanee]

I've heard it said by some that Warmages are better Evocation specialists than Evocation specialists ever were. The same has been said of Beguilers and Enchantment specialists.

It would be rather sad, if they weren't. All specialist wizards are still generalists from a wider point of view.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

So...

A better X than X is Y:

Evoker, Warmage
Enchanter, Thrallherd
Abjurer, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil
Illusionist, ?
Necromancer, (Pale Master/True Necromancer/Death Master/Cleric?)
Diviner, ?

Now, wait - which ones am I missing?

Oh yes,

conjurer, ?

I know that there are more than seven schools of magic. . .
The question is. . .

Which specialist wizards have been obviated by other, more specialized spellcasters? What are those replacements?

 

[Jubilee]

The Dread Necromancer in heroes of horror is a better necromancer than a specialist necromancer, and probably better than a cleric, don't know about a mix of both. It's a base class, too.

/ali

 

[shilsen]

It would be rather sad, if they weren't. All specialist wizards are still generalists from a wider point of view.

Bye
Thanee

As is often the case when Thanee posts, I see I'm redundant here

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

One of the reasons I am rather fond of the design of the Psion class is that the Disciplines add focus and give access to powers that make the character shine in their particular choice.

The specialist Wizards look silly generalists in comparison. The one and only thing I miss from 1e is the Illusionist class.

 

[Thanee]

The UA specialist variants are quite alright to make them more specialist than just with the PHB.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Victim]

Yeah, the specialist classes are better at their chosen fields than specialist wizards, but they give up a lot more. A warmage is a marginally better blaster than the evoker, but can't teleport, fly, scry, etc - the specialist wizard is still a wizard and thus retains most of the wizard's flexiblity. The blaster wizard has a strategic depth that the warmage lacks.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This takes me back...

In 1e we had wizards and illusionists, the latter being *true* specialists - own spell lists with some unique spells and flavour.

In 2e rather than extend the model to provide additional true specialists, we got the hodge-podge which is 'specialist wizards' - slight bonus in one field, lose access to other field(s), which sadly 3e continued.

I think that 1e had a much, much better model, and it seems that with beguiler, warmage, true necromancer etc. 3.5e has recognised that and is making patchwork responses to improve the situation.

It might be nice if a (hypothetical) 4e did this for real as a baseline, but I won't be holding my breath.

Cheers