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

[Neonchameleon]

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 . . .

People hate things being taken away from them. This is why this is a Next conversation - getting things right from the outset rather than a conversation that involves restrictions on some classes but not others and that is triggered by one person.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why can't these be subclasses? Or builds? What about necromancers? Or enchanters?

I think you're fundamentally on the right track here, but I think saying that people who like wizards fall into Blow Things Up and Trick Things camps is missing the mark a bit.

So, I think you're right in that the "wizard" class in D&D is hell of broad. Not coincidentally, the "Fighter" class and the "Rogue" class (and, to a lesser degree, the "Cleric" class) all have this problem.

Is your fighter a knightly defender? A reckless guy with a big weapon? A brilliant strategist?

Is your rogue a thief? A spy? An assassin?

Is your cleric a healer? A crusader? What if they serve a god of thieves and trickery and darkness?

Is your wizard a boom-maker? A trickster? A scholar?

When I look at the spell list in OD&D, when wizards were at their most limited, I see charms and transformations as the main themes: enchantment and transmutation. It's not monolithic (there's some booms and some illusions and others), but those are strong themes. This is a bit of an awkward fit for the Timmy/Johnny/Spike scheme, but then Timmy, Johnny, and Spike are three flavors of fiero, and "to win" isn't the only reason people play a particular class, so it's not I think the most useful way of looking at D&D class structure.

Which is part of where I think you're a little off base. A lot of people play wizards because they want to pretend to be a wizard, to do things that they imagine wizards doing. There's a lot of things that wizards do in various media, because "it's magic" is universal fantasy phlebotnium, and so D&D wizards end up being capable of doing anything. Which makes them hell of broad.

But I don't think the solution is two different classes, any more than I think the rogue needs to be split into a "thief" class and an "assassin" class and a "skirmisher" class. Rather than to divide it all up, I see embracing the multitude as a pretty good idea, because it enables more modularity: someone can be a little bit thief and a little bit assassin; someone can be a little bit illusionist, and a little bit evoker. With one Wizard class, you can play an evoker or a transmuter or an enchanter or an illusionist or a summoner or a runecaster or a necromancer or some sloshy hybrid, and you don't need to silo them in their own little towers.

I think the "problem" of versatility here should be broken down more effectively and specifically. Versatility isn't itself a problem -- being able to fly, shoot fireballs, and turn invisible isn't a problem when the party fighter is capable of the same thing (winged sandles, exploding arrows, and a cloak of invisibility!) -- it just becomes something ANY D&D character is capable of, part of the play experience. D&D has more typically had a problem where the wizard's ability to do that is granted and automatic and presumed, but the fighter's ability to do that depends on DM generosity and the correct magic items. That problem can be fixed in either direction: either the DM gets to pick the wizard's spells (something older e's frequently did), or the fighter player gets to pick their own magic items (such as via a crafting system or special mounts or somesuch).

You could also say that NOBODY should fly, turn invisible, and shoot fireballs (a less extreme version of that was a part of 4e's solution). Not the most satisfying in my mind.

I think siloing class abilities of a wizard into unique spell lists isn't really the answer, here. Invalidating the concept of a generalist wizard (and, in the process of which "classes" you select, the transmuter, the enchanter, the necromancer, the summoner...) isn't the best idea for D&D, I think. There should be a generalist wizard, the generalist wizard should just be balanced with the other classes -- they don't get to be the only ones capable of flying, turning invisible, and shooting fireballs. OR, those abilities aren't nearly as good as they have been in the past.

Now, in my personal game, I'm playing around with getting rid of all generalists (no rogue, no fighter, no wizard, no cleric) and concentrating on specialists (thief/assassin/spy, knight/slayer/cavalier, transmuter/necromancer/illusionist, protector/gish/monk), just 'cuz I kind of want to see what that looks like. But even there, I'm not making the distinction at the "class" level, and it's not meant to control the arcane/martial divide. All of these specializations are going to be "power source neutral": an arcane assassin and a divine assassin and a primal assassin all are going to have the assassin's abilities.

One of the things I'm realizing in doing this is that there's a LOT of specializations...

 

[billd91]

One of the things I'm realizing in doing this is that there's a LOT of specializations...

One of the reasons I feel it is often best left up to the individual player to pick and build their specialization.

 

[Nymrohd]

That is why it might be better from the start to say that this limited spell selection is the core, what every wizard can do, and then go forward from there. If DDN went ahead and said some spells are common, some uncommon, some rare and some legendary, it would make defining what each wizard can do very simple through the base of their class; the spell selection.

Extended example
So in such a system, a mage can automatically learn common or uncommon spell of any schools. A specialist can only learn common spells of schools outside his specialization. He can however learn rare spells of his specialization automatically. Learning new spells will take a decent chunk of time and complexity will matter as much as level.

In essence for those who remember and run it, it could work like Monte's Arcana Unearthed, only it would not use feats but rather treasure to cost new capabilities.

 

[Nymrohd]

One of the reasons I feel it is often best left up to the individual player to pick and build their specialization.

But how would you ever balance that? They did that once (AD&D Skills & Powers). It did not go well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So in such a system, a mage can automatically learn common or uncommon spell of any schools. A specialist can only learn common spells of schools outside his specialization. He can however learn rare spells of his specialization automatically. Learning new spells will take a decent chunk of time and complexity will matter as much as level.

It's worth noting that it's possible that NEXT is planning on using GP like some sort of horizontal-axis measure. They've talked about characters acquiring background abilities and suchlike with time and a GP investment, so more spells or new items or whatever seem to fall into that camp pretty comfortably.

I'm also personally fond of specialist-exclusive spells. Anyone can sling a Magic Missile, but Charm Person is only for the enchanters!

 

[billd91]

But how would you ever balance that? They did that once (AD&D Skills & Powers). It did not go well.

You build goals and difficultly levels and monsters so that hyperspecialization is not necessary, you set relative limits, you involve the GM enforcing those limits, you educate the players that GM involvement in character building is good and necessary, and you include notes on options to watch out for and use with caution. Basically, you use some of the tried and true methods that point-based games like Champions use, but as a character class and level-based game, you batch many of the basic elements up into broader packages to promote archetypes + moderate dim sum rather than carte blanche.

 

[keterys]

I'd love to see D&D move away from overly generic Wizards / Mages (and Clerics) who usually have access to more varying and unrestricted types of magic than even the most gaga magic systems (ex: Harry Potter, David Eddings).

Nothing wrong with having strong archetypes like Enchanter and Evoker as classes, even if they all learn some common magic.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Why can't these be subclasses? Or builds? What about necromancers? Or enchanters?

No particular reason. That's implementation rather than anything else

So, I think you're right in that the "wizard" class in D&D is hell of broad. Not coincidentally, the "Fighter" class and the "Rogue" class (and, to a lesser degree, the "Cleric" class) all have this problem.

Is your fighter a knightly defender? A reckless guy with a big weapon? A brilliant strategist?

And that is where we part company. "Does your party hit people with long heavy weapons or small thin weapons?" does not make the fighter a broad class. The fighter is a combat specialist using muscle-powered weaponary. I'm not even sure that "fighter" is a broader class than "assassin". It's merely that combat gets a disproportionate focus of the game. But the fighter being a narrower class than any of the other big ones even before you have the paladin, barbarian, and ranger cut into them is a tangent.

Which is part of where I think you're a little off base. A lot of people play wizards because they want to pretend to be a wizard, to do things that they imagine wizards doing. There's a lot of things that wizards do in various media, because "it's magic" is universal fantasy phlebotnium, and so D&D wizards end up being capable of doing anything. Which makes them hell of broad.

There is that. But other than Harry Potter, most people have something tighter than that in mind. And the reason I specifically called out the Evoker and the Trickster is because they are things people want to play different ways.

Evokers want to blow things up. As a rule they don't want to worry much about logistics, spell selection, or other fiddly details.

Tricksters (since people object to Illusionists) do not want too much power as a general rule. Sure they'll use it. But the fiddly details aren't such a problem and preparing for the right enemy is a big class of this playstyle.

Yes, I'm exaggerating for effect. But Evokers don't really want to play the Vancian wizard. Spell prep is not part of their fun - it's a necessary evil. Some Tricksters really enjoy this.

I think the "problem" of versatility here should be broken down more effectively and specifically. Versatility isn't itself a problem -- being able to fly, shoot fireballs, and turn invisible isn't a problem when the party fighter is capable of the same thing (winged sandles, exploding arrows, and a cloak of invisibility!)

My thoughts here are that people objected to 4e's Wealth by Level - and Next isn't even including magic item bonusses in their expectations. And that the party fighter is capable of the same thing without giving up core competencies if and only if they get a disproportionate share of treasure.

That problem can be fixed in either direction: either the DM gets to pick the wizard's spells (something older e's frequently did), or the fighter player gets to pick their own magic items (such as via a crafting system or special mounts or somesuch).

Yup. Of course this means that fighters need, without spellcaster help, to be able to make just about anything. With Magic-Mart being the second choice.

I think siloing class abilities of a wizard into unique spell lists isn't really the answer, here. Invalidating the concept of a generalist wizard

I suggested elsewhere the generalist wizard can take any spell - at a level penalty. So they'd be using non-generalist cantrips as first level spells. Except for the few spells specifically marked as iconic. (Flight, invisibility, turning someone into a frog).

That is why it might be better from the start to say that this limited spell selection is the core, what every wizard can do, and then go forward from there.

Or even what most wizards can do

It's worth noting that it's possible that NEXT is planning on using GP like some sort of horizontal-axis measure. They've talked about characters acquiring background abilities and suchlike with time and a GP investment, so more spells or new items or whatever seem to fall into that camp pretty comfortably.

I'm also personally fond of specialist-exclusive spells. Anyone can sling a Magic Missile, but Charm Person is only for the enchanters!

That works

I also want a tightly focussed non-Vancian option. If you only cast within a limited list, you know all the spells (no spellbook) and can spell point them at the very least.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No particular reason. That's implementation rather than anything else

I think we're 99% in agreement on this one, which probably means there's a Really Good Idea here.

There is that. But other than Harry Potter, most people have something tighter than that in mind. And the reason I specifically called out the Evoker and the Trickster is because they are things people want to play different ways.

I think the style difference is real, but it applies to more than just wizards. Heck, the difference between wanting minis combat and wanting a more narrative style kind of works on the same wavelength.

Personally, I think Paul Ekman's work is useful here -- the feeling of a well-executed plan (ie: pick your spells and use them right) is a kind of pride in accomplishment, but not everyone is looking for that payoff, and not everyone wants to find it in their spell selection.

I also think there's gonna be a non-Vancian option, but I'm not sure it'll be a class.