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

[Drago Rinato]

I think that spells choice should count more:
Summing spell level for every school we obtain an easy ranking. Every x rank the wizard got a bonus feature in that school.
Bonus can be a rare spell from that school, a spell become an encounter spell, or some minor permanent knack.

Sent from my MID using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

I don't think they've been historically unpopular across the board -- they predate all other specializations and have been available in all versions of the game, although in 4E, they're illusionists in name only -- but it's definitely true that there are DMs and players who have real issues with illusions. (See the reason Phantasmal Killer thread here for people trying to give a save or die spell that already grants two saving throws even more, simply because it's an illusion.)

I do think that the blasters/controllers divide, or whatever you want to call it, is a real one that needs to be supported. I've always skewed toward the latter, and the lack of real illusionists (along with gnomes being delayed as a player character race) are two of the things that made it clear 4E wasn't meant for me early on.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

They are popular -- as clerics. D&D has done a bad job of making arcane necromancers measure up to evil clerics. If I were in charge of 5E, I'd make them their own class, simply to tackle that problem from the get-go.

 

[Nymrohd]

I don't think they've been historically unpopular across the board -- they predate all other specializations and have been available in all versions of the game, although in 4E, they're illusionists in name only -- but it's definitely true that there are DMs and players who have real issues with illusions. (See the reason Phantasmal Killer thread here for people trying to give a save or die spell that already grants two saving throws even more, simply because it's an illusion.)

I do think that the blasters/controllers divide, or whatever you want to call it, is a real one that needs to be supported. I've always skewed toward the latter, and the lack of real illusionists (along with gnomes being delayed as a player character race) are two of the things that made it clear 4E wasn't meant for me early on.

Honestly I think what the game needs for illusionists and the like is a lot more examples of play. I remember when I first picked up my AD&D core books and I was trying to understand how the game was played. The rules were fine and all but what got my attention was those 2-3 pages on the PHB that explained combat. We need a lot more of those imo.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Necromancers and summoners (not conjurers, summoners) are something D&D has historically had problems with. Especially 3rd Edition and Pathfinder.

Pathfinder has a "new" class called the summoner, which is basically a weaker conjurer but has a long-lasting summon (much like an animal companion). It's widely viewed as broken. Not necessarily OP, at least not compared to a conjurer, but when your only good option is to fill up space on the battlefield and take up time during combat to mass summon, that's what you're going to do.

Necromancers run into many of those problems. 4e's companion rules help a little (in that whatever is following you could presumably have similar rules to hirelings or henchmen companions), but it'll start to fall apart if you can have more than one minion, and what necromancer doesn't want an army of undead minions?

I don't think any ruleset could actually solve the problem either, even outside of D&D.

 

[Nymrohd]

If the necromancer can bring an army of zombies and the summoner can bring an army of celestial animals or small elementals, why can't the fighter bring a military unit or the thief bring his subordinates from the local guild? The problem is not having an army of minions, it is having super powerful minions that can completely replace other players. And in most editions you could not really do that unless your DM was really lazy with what negotiating means to your average deva.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

Sounds it

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.

And now it's time for an aside.

I was once a pretty good dancer - on several differnt university dance teams. And it's not just the tactical nature I enjoy about 4e combat. It's that in a very real way 4e shows me how its characters move when the rubber meets the road - something which as far as I know no other RPG and almost no tabletop wargame does. The movement of a pre-Essentials 4e martial character is, to me, a much clearer and richer narrative than almost any I've heard in person or from any podcast.

Necromancers and summoners (not conjurers, summoners) are something D&D has historically had problems with. Especially 3rd Edition and Pathfinder.

Pathfinder has a "new" class called the summoner, which is basically a weaker conjurer but has a long-lasting summon (much like an animal companion). It's widely viewed as broken. Not necessarily OP, at least not compared to a conjurer, but when your only good option is to fill up space on the battlefield and take up time during combat to mass summon, that's what you're going to do.

It's even more OP than most people think; a specialist conjurer is basically the most powerful wizarding option you can get. And due to discounted levels on conjurations a Summoner can almost go head to head with them in the conjuration school (for instance Teleport is a 4th level spell meaning it can go in a wand, and Haste is a 2nd level spell). While having a lot of summons that match the best summoning spells available to the conjurer, can't be interrupted and activate the turn they are cast. And at low levels having a medium BAB and armour. The Eidolon is just gravy - or takes the place of the rogue. And the lack of versatility is made up for by the fact that Summon Monster is one of the most flexible spells in the game.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

If the necromancer can bring an army of zombies and the summoner can bring an army of celestial animals or small elementals, why can't the fighter bring a military unit or the thief bring his subordinates from the local guild? The problem is not having an army of minions, it is having super powerful minions that can completely replace other players. And in most editions you could not really do that unless your DM was really lazy with what negotiating means to your average deva.

Not every wizard is going to have an army of zombies or summons, not every fighter will have any Charisma, and, of course, that would gum up the game horrendously.

A wizard that can summons lots of minions gets a lot more narrative power than other wizards. (Well, maybe not one who charms minions instead.)

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I preferred playing diviners in 3.X. I want to see real support for divination specialists.

 

[Falling Icicle]

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.

I disagree that evokers and illusionists are the only two basic schools of magic people think about when they want to play a wizard. Enchanters, Necromancers, Summoners, etc. are all very popular archetypes. There are, after all, eight schools of magic, not just two.

That having been said, I do agree that wizards are far too versatile. I think wizards should all have a specialty school, and access to one or two other secondary schools to start. As they go up in level, they could perhaps gain access to a couple more schools, or maybe be able to purchase additional schools with feats. I think a wizard with access to 3+ schools would have more than enough spells to hold his own, though they should add some more cantrips, since not everyone is going to want to have evocation as one of their schools. Of course, some spells, like detect magic, could be universal and available to all wizards.

I think this would accomplish several things. It would solve the problem of "do everything but heal" wizards. It would also create a much wider variety of types of wizards. Instead of school specialization being a niche choice, it would be a defining one. It would also encourage players to think outside the box a lot more, since they'd have fewer (but still a lot) of tools at their disposal.