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

[MoonSong]

No, this is not the difference between sorcerer and wizard. "Sorcerer" does not equal "blaster." Being a sorcerer in 3E just means you're sacrificing strategic flexibility for tactical. Instead of arming yourself with exactly the right spell for a given situation, you have to pick a set of versatile spells suitable for lots of situations; but when you find yourself facing an unexpected challenge, you have the freedom to choose at will from that more limited set, instead of being stuck with whatever loadout you picked at the start of the day.

Yes, exactly. 4e commited the mistake of shoehorning of sorcerers into the blaster role, however that isn't necessarilly the case, in fact this tactical versatility made 3.x sorcerers very adept at being self buffing gishes thier ability to spam quickened truestrikes, blades of fire, insigtful feints, master's touch and the lot made them very good at it. And I bet I'm not the only one who made sorcerers specialized to fill a party role other than "caster", for example, ranged combat, infiltrator, thief, melee warrior (skirmisher), party face and the like.

However their differences with wizards were also thematical (more of "commoner with spells" than "arcane scholars", though there were obviously some scholarly sorcerers out there too). I don't know how they are going to leave room for the sorcerer now that wizards have also gained tactical flexibility though.

 

[Weather Report]

Illusionist should be a class, if certain unfounded promises are to be believed.

 

[Dausuul]

Illusionist should be a class, if certain unfounded promises are the be believed.

I presume you are referring to this quote:

Q: Will some of the non-traditional classes like the Ninja appear early in the next edition?

Bruce Cordell: The goal at the moment is to include all the classes that were in the first PH style book for each edition. No word on other classes yet.

"The goal at the moment" (as of a year and a half ago) is hardly a promise. Furthermore, it only states that the classes will be "included," not that they will all remain distinct classes. If "illusionist" appears as a specialization of the wizard class (as it was in 2E and 3E), that would be consistent with the stated goal.

 

[Weather Report]

I presume you are referring to this quote:


"The goal at the moment" (as of a year and a half ago) is hardly a promise. Furthermore, it only states that the classes will be "included," not that they will all remain distinct classes. If "illusionist" appears as a specialization of the wizard class (as it was in 2E and 3E), that would be consistent with the stated goal.

I totally agree, but many are saying if the Warlord is not its own distinct class in the PHB, WotC has lied to them and they will not buy the game.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Yes, exactly. 4e commited the mistake of shoehorning of sorcerers into the blaster role

Chaos sorcerers are fairly controlly, but I don't think that was the point.

Sorcerers existed in 3.x in order to be wizards with a different casting method, and that's it. 4e made wizards very different, and had to make sorcerers from scratch (or, well, I suppose they could have not made them). When I look at 3.x sorcerers and Pathfinder sorcerers, especially, quite often I think "if this person were a 4e NPC, they'd be a warlock instead". Sometimes a feylock, and those are often controlly.

 

[Manbearcat]

Chaos sorcerers are fairly controlly, but I don't think that was the point.

Sorcerers existed in 3.x in order to be wizards with a different casting method, and that's it. 4e made wizards very different, and had to make sorcerers from scratch (or, well, I suppose they could have not made them). When I look at 3.x sorcerers and Pathfinder sorcerers, especially, quite often I think "if this person were a 4e NPC, they'd be a warlock instead". Sometimes a feylock, and those are often controlly.

Absolutely. I'd say they're equal parts Controller and Striker/Skirmisher. There is an awful lot of functional, thematic flavor in that class with its Draconic manifestations and Storm/Elemental flying etc. Its far, far and away its own unique beast separated from the Wizard and most of that isn't due to Controller vs Striker.

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

IMHO the premise is plain wrong. Not only there is much more than just 2 archetypes of wizards, but the "generalist" wizards who knows a lot of tricks of very different types is a popular archetype too, and possibly it is the MOST popular archetype among casual gamers, at least IMXP. (Furthermore, while "blaster mage" is common, at least IMXP I have met more fans of at least Necromancers and Enchanters than Illusionists, possibly others...).

Splitting the Wizard class in multiple classes is a mistake similar to splitting the Fighter into a Swordsman and an Archer, forcing many players to complicate everything by multiclassing (which in the case of Swordsman/Archer would be still much easier than e.g. trying to play an Evoker/Illusionist/Summoner/Necromancer/Charmer/Transmuter/Diviner/Alchemist/Magic-item-creator...).

Making those subclasses is the way to go, because subclassing usually just gives an edge into a specific area, without precluding other areas.

Instead, turning them into separate classes typically leads to forcing some spell capabilities to be "this class only" to emphasize their distinctiveness, only to then bring the option back in with multiclassing, with its inevitable baggage of complexity and bugs.

 

[Falling Icicle]

No, this is not the difference between sorcerer and wizard. "Sorcerer" does not equal "blaster."

Indeed, some of the best sorcerers I've played or seen had few, if any, blasting spells.

 

[MoonSong]

Chaos sorcerers are fairly controlly, but I don't think that was the point.

Sorcerers existed in 3.x in order to be wizards with a different casting method, and that's it. 4e made wizards very different, and had to make sorcerers from scratch (or, well, I suppose they could have not made them). When I look at 3.x sorcerers and Pathfinder sorcerers, especially, quite often I think "if this person were a 4e NPC, they'd be a warlock instead". Sometimes a feylock, and those are often controlly.

But the 3.x sorcerers aren't just a casting method, very early on there was little separating them from wizards on other aspects, but their story was just different and that was highly appealing, the casting mechanics are just secondary to that, but having a caster whose power was completely orthogonal to books was refreshing (I've played clerics across most editions without a problem, but rarely if ever played a wizard, perhaps two or three at most, mechanics had nothing to do with it, but their flavor was a big turn off, had the sorcerer had been just an optional rule for wizards I would never have touched any kind of arcane caster)

And 4e did conflate sorcerers with blasters, all of the arcane sources they have are big, showy and over the top, (basically making them pure forces of mass destruction) never ever covering more subtle kinds of sorcerers or giving them out of combat utility (though what little they have was awesome, it was very limited compared to the "Arcana does everything" Cantrips from wizards)

 

[gyor]

The problem with Illusion school is that the divination spell true seeing makes your entire school useless. Monsters and character classes that have it can see through all an illusionist illusion spells.

A freaking Paladin is a nightmare for an illusionist not only can he or she cast true seeing, but if that illusionist happens to be undead, a fiend, or celestial there doubly screwed.

True Seeing needs a nerf, it should grant a chance to seeing through any illusion it should not be automatic.

The Padadin power is specific enough to be fine as is.