Will Specialist Mages be listed as separate classes?

[Dungeonosophy]

We know that the 2e Specialty Priest will become the 5e Priest class, which will be distinct from the Cleric class. We also know that all classes which have appeared in the first PHB of each edition will be included in the first 5e PHB.

So will the Illusionist which first appeared in 1e, and the other Specialist Mages which appeared in 2e, be merged into a single class like the 5e Priest, and if so, what would that class be named? "Specialist Mage" doesn't sound like a great class name.

Or, since the Illusionist class may be an iconic old school feature to retain for an "edition to unite all editions", then perhaps each specialty will be considered a separate class in 5e:

Abjurer
Conjurer
Diviner
Enchanter
Evoker (in 3e; Invoker in 2e)
Illusionist
Necromancer
Transmuter

What do you guys think and prefer?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Or, since the Illusionist class may be an iconic old school feature to retain for an "edition to unite all editions", then perhaps each specialty will be considered a separate class in 5e:

Abjurer
Conjurer
Diviner
Enchanter
Evoker (in 3e; Invoker in 2e)
Illusionist
Necromancer
Transmuter

What do you guys think and prefer?

I would love to see the 3e warmage and beguiler like classes for specilists. The dread necromancer would be a good start for a necromancer.

 

[trancejeremy]

I would hope it's a lot different, like the Illusionist (or the Dread Necromancer), and not just the specialist stuff from 2e, which was pretty boring for MUs

And personally, I think only maybe half of those are interesting enough concepts to be a class: Illusionist, Necromancer, Conjurer, and Enchanter. Maybe Diviner. But Evoker? Abjurer?

 

[Kynn]

Or, since the Illusionist class may be an iconic old school feature to retain for an "edition to unite all editions", then perhaps each specialty will be considered a separate class in 5e:

Abjurer
Conjurer
Diviner
Enchanter
Evoker (in 3e; Invoker in 2e)
Illusionist
Necromancer
Transmuter

What do you guys think and prefer?

I hope they dump 2e's awful "schools of magic" specialists. Those are terrible ways of classifying spells and spellcasters.

 

[mkill]

I hope they dump 2e's awful "schools of magic" specialists. Those are terrible ways of classifying spells and spellcasters.

YMMV. I liked them, and I like them more than a generic "Wizard". I think PF and Essentials went the right direction to have specialist Wizards with specific class features that are more than just extra spell slots.

Whether these are separate classes or subclasses of a general Wizard class, I don't care so much. Whatever design makes more sense within 5E.

 

[Lanefan]

Illusionist and Necromancer are the only ones distinctive enough to make a separate class worth bothering with; and I think they should both be included as their own classes. The rest can be folded in as generic Wizard/Magic User.

Lanefan

 

[Dausuul]

I would hope it's a lot different, like the Illusionist (or the Dread Necromancer), and not just the specialist stuff from 2e, which was pretty boring for MUs

And personally, I think only maybe half of those are interesting enough concepts to be a class: Illusionist, Necromancer, Conjurer, and Enchanter. Maybe Diviner. But Evoker? Abjurer?

The evoker is a perfectly viable class concept: Blasty McBlasterson. Personally, I would find it boring as all hell. But there are a fair number of players who just want to go boom, a lot, for a lot of damage, and the evoker would fill that niche quite well.

Based on how abjuration has worked in the past, the abjurer would be almost purely defensive when fighting normal enemies--like a priest with less healing but more defensive buffs. Against magic-using or supernatural foes, the abjurer would actively shut down the enemy, laying down a barrage of dispelling, banishing, and countermagic. I could see it being a fascinating, highly tactical class. Every other breed of wizard would be terrified of going up against an abjurer.

The real challenge is the diviner. Past editions have struggled to make the diviner concept viable in combat; concealed information plays a small role in most D&D fights, unless the DM makes an effort to change that, so it's tough to figure out how the diviner can contribute. I think the answer would be to build on spells like true strike and foresight; the diviner can drastically cut down the randomness of combat. Got a crucial attack that absolutely has to hit this round? The diviner's voice whispers in your mind, telling you exactly when and where to strike. Flanked by a couple of NPC rogues? The diviner gives you eyes in the back of your head, denying them the chance to sneak attack. Et cetera.

(By the way, you forgot transmutation.)

 

[Ratskinner]

We know that the 2e Specialty Priest will become the 5e Priest class, which will be distinct from the Cleric class. We also know that all classes which have appeared in the first PHB of each edition will be included in the first 5e PHB.

While I would look forward to the priest/cleric distinction, I'm not sure we know it will be there so much as it's something they're considering or testing out. I think it would be nice to see and hope it works out. I also seem to recall that specialty priests were each basically unique for each diety, rather than a single class. I also seem to recall that many of them were at least as combat-heavy as the "generic" cleric. Of course, its been many years, and I sold my books years ago.

So will the Illusionist which first appeared in 1e, and the other Specialist Mages which appeared in 2e, be merged into a single class like the 5e Priest, and if so, what would that class be named? "Specialist Mage" doesn't sound like a great class name.

Or, since the Illusionist class may be an iconic old school feature to retain for an "edition to unite all editions", then perhaps each specialty will be considered a separate class in 5e:

Abjurer
Conjurer
Diviner
Enchanter
Evoker (in 3e; Invoker in 2e)
Illusionist
Necromancer
Transmuter

What do you guys think and prefer?

Personally, I'm not a big fan of those 8 schools. IIRC they were contrived to give one to each Wizard in Gygax's "Circle of Eight" or something. (You know, Mordenkainen, Otiluke, etc.)

I'd prefer more specialist wizards based on cultural or functional niches within gameworlds, rather than such mechanical contrivances. So I could see:
Illusionist
Necromancer
Witch
Wildmage
Diviner
Elementalist/Sorcerer (if not a separate class for 3+e's sake)
Mindwalker/Psionicist ? (too early? )

All being generally applicable. Others might appear in different settings, or for certain supplements. (An ancient greek setting might get an Oracle, Japan a Shugenja, etc.)

You do bring up an interesting point, though. Technically, there were a lot of (sub)classes in the 2e PHB, and I'm not sure how I'd count them if I were looking to include all the classes that appeared in every PHB.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

They predate the Circle of Eight, I believe. I certainly remember the schools of magic being mentioned years before the Circle.

And I agree that most specialists are pretty dull. Necromancers, illusionist, evoker and maybe transmuter. Dividers are great NPCs to consult, though.

 

[Minigiant]

While I would look forward to the priest/cleric distinction, I'm not sure we know it will be there so much as it's something they're considering or testing out. I think it would be nice to see and hope it works out. I also seem to recall that specialty priests were each basically unique for each diety, rather than a single class. I also seem to recall that many of them were at least as combat-heavy as the "generic" cleric. Of course, its been many years, and I sold my books years ago.

I'm too hoping for the "warrior healbot" cleric and "variable caster" priest

Personally, I'm not a big fan of those 8 schools. IIRC they were contrived to give one to each Wizard in Gygax's "Circle of Eight" or something. (You know, Mordenkainen, Otiluke, etc.)

I'd prefer more specialist wizards based on cultural or functional niches within gameworlds, rather than such mechanical contrivances. So I could see:
Illusionist
Necromancer
Witch
Wildmage
Diviner
Elementalist/Sorcerer (if not a separate class for 3+e's sake)
Mindwalker/Psionicist ? (too early? )

All being generally applicable. Others might appear in different settings, or for certain supplements. (An ancient greek setting might get an Oracle, Japan a Shugenja, etc.)

You do bring up an interesting point, though. Technically, there were a lot of (sub)classes in the 2e PHB, and I'm not sure how I'd count them if I were looking to include all the classes that appeared in every PHB.

I too hope for instead of only school based, wizard specialization to be also based on culture or training.

Wizard

• Illusionist- Rogue-like dextrous ability & illusion boost
• Necromancer- Undead warrior minion & necromancy boost
• Witch- Intelligent Animal familiar & transmutation/divination boost
• Hermit- survival skills and druid-like spells
• Warmage- many many blasting boosts and better weapons