Will Specialist Mages be listed as separate classes?

[drothgery]

My thoughts are
- the idea of specialized magic users who have a more focused spell list but gain other abilities instead is a good one
- the implementation of classic specialist wizards (an extra spell slot per level, losing access to one or two other schools) was kind of dull, if often mechanically useful (especially at low levels, more spell slots were worth a lot); in part this had a lot to do with huge variation in how useful the various schools were
- on the other hand, the late 3.x dedicated specialist classes (warmage, beguiller, artificer, dread necromancer) and some 4e builds of various arcane classes had a much more flavorful spin on the idea
- except possibly a simple 'blaster mage' concept, I don't think dedicated specialists are something that should be in the first player's book

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

I dunno, I don't think I ever saw an Abjurer, Diviner, Conjurer, or Invoker in 2e. In 3e, I never saw a specialist mage, ever (except some NPC Necromancers). I played with a lot of people, too. I don't think that that set of specialists is particularly bad, I just don't think its particularly good.

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...

As a player, it matter less. As a DM, it matters more. Mostly because (especially in 2e) the 8 schools kinda defined/restricted magic. Perhaps not so much in that those schools existed, but that they were defined as "the way magic works." That made it harder to reconceptualize magic and create culturally unique specialists or magic for your own campaigns.

If they are included (presumably in an "advanced classes" module) I won't avoid purchasing the game, but I'd prefer they avoided the following:

• taking up a large pagecount for them (unless said pagecount is or includes a "how to make specialist wizard classes" section.)
• making them uber-symmetrical (i.e., give them each some unique cool abilities, features, or weaknesses. +1 save DC, or whatever in 5e, isn't enough, IMO.)
• Bending the spell list or magic system so that it fits this particular way of dividing magical effects to the exclusion of others. (i.e. School should be an optional keyword, not fundamental characteristic of all magic.)

If they avoid those temptations, I don't care if they include all 8 as exemplars of specialist mages.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The only version of this approach which I've seen and like is the Mage from 4e essentials. The idea that a wizarding class takes an initial specialisation (e.g. illusionist) and gains some thematic benefits and some extra effects when casting illusion spells which increase as he gains level, AND he then takes a secondary class which is his minor specialisation - never gets as good, but still gets a benefit.

I think in the 4e book the Mage could be Evoker, Illusionist or Enchanter specialists - but the clever design meant you could have an EVOKER illusionist, an EVOKER enchanter, an ILLUSIONIST evoker, an ILLUSIONIST enchanter, and ENCHANTER evoker or an ENCHANTER illusionist. Adding another specialty like Necromancer or Shadow dramatically increases the range of possible combinations.

That's what I'd like to see in 5e.

Cheers

 

[Dungeonosophy]

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

In 2e, the Classes were organized by Group: Wizard, Warrior, Priest, Rogue.

In the Wizard Group, there was the Mage class (the generalist) and the various Specialist Wizard classes.

 

[Mon]

It might be neat if they divided the arcane/wizard spells into Simple, Complex, and Exotic spells, a la Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved.

Standard wizards have access to all simple and complex spells, but not to exotic spells.

Specialist wizards have access to all simple spells, plus complex and exotic spells from their own school.

This way, the specialist classes have unique spells that standard wizards don't get which IMO has two benefits:

1. Illusionists and "magic-users" would have different spells again (like they did in 1e), with some overlap. The same thing applies for other specialists too, of course.

2. "Batman" wizards might be restricted from some of the strongest and most iconic school spells by making them exotic thereby diminishing the efficacy of their "utility belt"

Just putting it out there.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am also a fan of 2nd edition and 3.0 specialists. And I agree, that fixed prohibited schools are defining them too, so i hated 3.5 specialists.

But giving more than a spell slot (2nd edition actually gave out a free spell focus IIRC) seems a good idea. Also some spells should be classified as universal which every mage can access. The standard wizard should maybe get a bonus relating to that school.
Edit: Pathfinder has it about right...