D&D 5E Wizards: Evokers *and* Illusionists?

[Neonchameleon]

The biggest problem the classic D&D wizard has IMO is that there are two basic schools of magic that people are thinking of when they want to play a wizard. And D&D historically has tried to accomodate both within the same class, leading to pretty huge tensions.

The first one is the Evoker. The powerful, flashy mage who blows stuff up and feels mighty. Boom. Ideally an Evoker wants magic that's simple, straightforward (Note that not all Evokers in this classification necessarily use evocation spells; a lot of conjuration spells fit the pattern, and a fair few necromancers and other schools). A pure Evoker's ideal victory ends up with a great smoking hole where the enemy castle was, and the Evoker themselves walking out sillhouetted by the fire and flames.

The Second one is the Illusionist. The trickster who enjoys the challenge of using a rag-tag bag of quixotic magic to rig things in their favour - preferably using small spells to weight things and counter, effectively playing Xanatos Speed Chess. (Again, not all Illusionists favour the illusion school - enchantment and divination are also favourites). A pure illusionist's ideal victory takes just one spell; the right spell (or better yet a Silent Image of the right spell) and very possibly no one even knowing the illusionist was there.

This, incidently, is very close to the Timmy/Johnny divide in Magic the Gathering.

But my basic question here is given that there are two very distinct profiles here who both pick wizards (albeit for very different reasons) should the wizard remain one class or be split into the flashy evoker with obvious spells and few direct limits on them but limited subtlety, and the sneaky trickster with quirky and weak-appearing spells?

 

[Nymrohd]

3.5 did split it in two. Warmage and beguiler. Indeed if you are one of the DMs out there who restricted rules that were T1 or even T2, that was all the wizard you had.
The thing is, wizard NPCs do not map out to that divide. They do both. Even those who love plots within plots will want to use the occasional evocation to smite that uppity minion (and indeed, when all the plots are done and your wizard has the advantage, he still wants the firepower to destroy his target, he just needs less and is far more likely to make it land).
The wizard can stay one class. It's just that a) specialization needs to be more important, b)the utility of the schools of magic needs to be seriously examined.
For a) it is not unlikely to happen. For b) don't get your hopes up; WotC obviously did not like the reaction it got on 4E killing sacred cows left and right.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I wouldn't count illusionists as the "second choice" as they've been historically unpopular, due to DM fiat.

Since 3rd edition, it's been blasters versus "controllers" instead. While illusionists are "controllers" they're the least reliable of the bunch.

Both 4e (Essentials) and Pathfinder have actually done things to distinguish them. 4e evokers get to reroll 1s, and Pathfinder evokers get to add half their level in damage to spells. Other subclasses get a variety of extra effects, even though each subclass can use the others' spells.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I've always thought that just as a Rogue much choose which skills they are good, ok and poor at, and just as a Fighter must decide which weapon, and fighting style to focus on, a Wizard ought to do the same with the schools of magic. If you want to achieve the flashiest of fireballs, you'll never have the greatest protective wards or tricky illusions. If you want to be able to summon the mightiest demons, you won't be able to control the minds of lesser mortals or steal their souls. I think spellcasters should go the way of the 2E Cleric - you just don't get to cast everything.

 

[Ravenheart87]

You forgot necromancers, which seems to be a quite popular archetype. Far more popular than illusionists IMO.

 

[Leatherhead]

This divide is arbitrary.
Personally I hate both fireball flingers and tricksters, but for different reasons.
And clearly, a summoner/necromancer is a distinctive, if lazy, third option: Got a problem? Send a minion to do it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I wouldn't count illusionists as the "second choice" as they've been historically unpopular, due to DM fiat.

Oh, undoubtedly. It was either going to be Illusionists or Enchanters - but there is a definite DM Fiat problem with the archetype when used in D&D, especially with the DM Entitlement problems that often seem common.

I've always thought that just as a Rogue much choose which skills they are good, ok and poor at, and just as a Fighter must decide which weapon, and fighting style to focus on, a Wizard ought to do the same with the schools of magic.

Agreed. One of my brainstorming suggestions involved treating all spells other than those of the school you specialise in as two levels higher. Generalists treat all spells as one level higher than they are (so cantrips take first level slots).

You forgot necromancers, which seems to be a quite popular archetype. Far more popular then illusionists IMO.

Necromancers are an archetype - but I don't think they are a pure play style.

 

[Umbran]

3.5 did split it in two.

And 1e had them as two classes, as well. Separate spell lists and everything.

So, rather than trying to cover them in one class, historically, D&D has not had a very consistent way of dealing with it.

 

[Ravenheart87]

Necromancers are an archetype - but I don't think they are a pure play style.

Well, let's call it a summoner playstyle then (now that you mention, elementalists and demonologists are quite popular too, at least around me).

 

[Nymrohd]

There is an easy way to do this ofc. Limit spell selection. But every time I talk about spells as treasure and spell rarity some people go ballistic . . .