Will Specialist Mages be listed as separate classes?

[Khaalis]

Unfortunately, the spell schools are as Sacred Cow as Vacian magic, so expect them to not be going anywhere (as much as I dislike them). However, I would like to see specialists become condensed into unique classes, rather than simply "can cast more spells from their school, but banned from others".

Something like:
* Beguiler - Enchantment & Illusion specialist
* Shaper - Necromancy & Transmutation specialist
* Summoner - Conjuration & Divination specialist
* Warmage - Abjuration & Evocation specialist


What I would prefer is a redefining of spell schools similar to what Fantasy Craft did with the original d20 spell lists. FC's system comprises 8 Schools of Magic, each with 3 Disciplines. I at least want the ability to split spells up into new schools like this.

Each school has its own class named after the school, such as Channelers, Reapers, etc. also key to note is there is only 1 "base" Spellcasting class - the Mage (no cleric, no druid, etc.)

Channeler: This highly combative School taps and controls primal forces.
• Energy: Creates surges of fire, light, and sound, mostly in the form of powerful destructive spells
• Force: Generates invisible mass the caster can shape and direct at will
• Weather: Manipulates the environment, particularly the atmosphere

Conjuror: This School makes and controls the building blocks of the physical world.
• Compass: Alters time, speed, position, and size
• Conversion: Changes the shape and properties of matter
• Creation: Creates matter from nothing

Enchanter: This intimate School grants dominion over life in all its myriad forms.
• Charm: Influences the minds and emotions of others
• Healing: Repairs and refreshes the body and mind
• Nature: Sways plants and animals

Preserver: This School focuses on protecting and liberating places and people.
• Glory: Invokes righteous fury, promoting excellence and victory in battle
• Seals: Forms magical glyphs and impediments
• Warding: Prevents and deflects harm

Prophet: This School teaches about the worlds beyond ours, as well as what ours might become.
• Blessing: Reveals cosmic splendor, raising the body, mind, and spirit
• Calling: Channels and summons from the fringes of this world, and beyond
• Foresight: Predicts and manifests the future

Reaper: Rooted in suffering and death, this School promotes pain, fear, and corruption.
• Affliction: Brings lasting suffering, commonly as curses
• Necromancy: Explores the veil between death and undeath
• Shadow: Harnesses the power of darkness

Seer: This School offers unique insights about the mechanics of the known world.
• Artifice: Exposes and transforms the inner workings of machines, magic items, and spells
• Divination: Gleans details about the past and present
• Word: Derives power from language

Trickster: This School makes truth of untruth.
• Illusion: Projects false images and feelings
• Secrets: Invents lies and reveals truths
• Shapeshifting: Transforms the body

 

[Hassassin]

I think kits would be the perfect way to make specialists work. Depending on how themes look like they might work as well.

 

[Dausuul]

Specialist casters are a great way to make the mechanics of one class do the work of several. If you're going to devote half the book to spell lists, you want to get as much mileage out of those lists as you can. So I think this should definitely be on the table.

I do hope, however, that specialists are more in the mold of the Beguiler/Dread Necromancer/Warmage rather than the traditional version.

 

[grimslade]

In light of the latest L&L, I think specialist wizards will be expressed with feats, Disciple of Mordenkainen, with an at-will or utility spell, or maybe feat chains.
Hopefully, it will not be a feat tax and instead be a way to customize with default feats expressed as class abilities for simple classes.

 

[Nebulous]

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

I disagree. I always liked these classifications.

 

[El Mahdi]

...Dividers are great NPCs to consult, though.

I prefer Uniters over Dividers...

 

[Yora]

It always appeared to me that specialist are not defined by the school they specialize in, but by the school they ignore.

 

[El Mahdi]

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

I disagree. I always liked these classifications.

I disagree also. They may be terrible ways of classifying spells and spellcasters to you, but there are many that absolutely loved it. It brough a theme to their characters that they found inspiring from a roleplaying perspective, as well as mechanically differentiating them from other spellcasters. It wasn't my cup of tea either, but playing at a table with someone who did use this did not affect my enjoyment of the game one bit. My character would just respond with "Magic is wierd. It just makes no sense to me!", or "You're quite different than other Wizards I've met...". I don't see the problem.

How is this a problem for you if they are included? If you don't like them, don't use them. However, the player sitting next to you at the table may feel quite differently, and they should have the option...

 

[SkidAce]

I liked the old specializations, but we always looked at magic as the "science" of the fantasy world, so basically mages became technicians in different fields.

For what it was worth.

Later, more thematic wizards like elementalists showed up in our worlds, but still, they showed a field of study.

Like the idea that magic is too intricate to study it all.

 

[paladinm]

I believe in 2e, specialists were called Mages and generalists were called Wizards (or vice-versa)?

With regards to the priest/cleric split, it seems like the "priest" class would be the equivalent of the 4e Invoker?