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

[GSHamster]

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?

I don't think this is quite right. I think the better analogy works like:

Broadly speaking, there are two types of "mundane" characters: characters who like to hit things and solve problems in a direct fashion; and characters who prefer to use guile and subtlety. The first maps to Fighter, and the second maps to Rogue.

Mundane characters already have the split by style, but magical characters were split along different lines, by power source instead of style.

Ignoring clerics for a second, I think [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] is proposing a pattern like:

Mundane => Magical
Fighter => Evoker
Rogue => Illusionist

 

[The Shadow]

I think specialization needs to go much further than it has in the recent past. And it needs to *not* be based on the spell schools, which are artificial, vague, and never intended to support such use. (Frankly, I think the spell schools as we have known them could just as well disappear. They have just about no mythic or fantasy basis and they have never been used consistently.)

I would never willingly play AD&D again, but one thing it really did get right was the Illusionist, in my opinion. It was a fascinating class, and one I very much enjoyed playing. For one thing, they were not limited to just the Illusion school, despite their name; they had a lot of enchantments too, and a smattering of other things. For another, although there were many things they could not do, there were also things they could do that no "Magic-User" could. Generalist wizards couldn't cast Shadow Conjuration or Phantasmal Killer. When 2e dumped all the wizard spells in one box, it was a huge disappointment to me.

The sort of specialization I'd like to see is thematic, and in that sense I think the OP is sort of on the right track.

I don't think that 'Evocation' is really a useful specialization or concept. But Elementalist, for example, certainly is. As is Necromancer, though not limited to what we currently think of as the 'necromancy' school.

I'd like to see a group either of classes or of subclasses or whatever you want to call them, that have their own distinct spell lists. (With a certain small number of spells common to them all. Detect Magic is an obvious choice.)

And I would like there not to be a generalist option at all. Or if there is, that it be not only jack of all trades but also master of none. A generalist casting illusions should not only cast illusions in an inferior way to a true illusionist, but there should be some illusions that are just plain beyond his comprehension. Each subclass should get its own set of cool toys that others don't get to play with.

I'm not very familiar with the 3.X Beguiler, but I'm told it is an example along the lines of what I'm looking for.

(A bit of a tangent, but I've sometimes wondered if the classic D&D magic-user could be reinterpreted as a specialist wizard of its own; perhaps one using Force magic. Magic Missile, Wall of Force, the Bigby spells, and so on. Or perhaps a Thaumaturge who specializes in flashy transmutations, whiz-bang evocations, and so on.)

 

[Quickleaf]

I totally endorse what [MENTION=16760]The Shadow[/MENTION] and others are saying about wizard specializations, and the importance of thematic consistency being enforced by the character rules...especially for wizards.

I think the Evoker / Trickster divide that [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] points out is actually better described as the Easy / Complex divide (some might call it Beginner / Advanced), and has to do with how much forethought and planning a player enjoys. Basically it's a play style layer that goes on top of the thematic choice of wizard specialty.

For example, I might want to play a fire elementalist but at the same time enjoy Complex/Advanced spellcasting. Whereas my nephew might want to play as a fire Elementalist and enjoy Easy/Beginner spellcasting.

IOW the Easy/Complex divide doesnt necessarily map to Evoker or Trickster themes. I agree that for experienced D&D players it often does, but maybe that's because they've been trained by the rules? For example, I've frequently seen new players who want to play a character with Easy magic that is not Evoker themed but rather Trickster themed (invisibility, ghost sound, and such).

 

[Aenghus]

I've frequently seen new players who want to play a character with Easy magic that is not Evoker themed but rather Trickster themed (invisibility, ghost sound, and such).

I've seen a lot of new players over the years who want to play a wizard/ arcane spellcaster immediately, and I always found it irritating that in most editions of D&D I felt I had to advise them against doing so. Low level arcane spellcasters had lots more complex decisions to make over other PCs and their vulnerability and often unfriendly spell powers meant one bad decision could result in the death of their PC or kill other members of the party by accident. Advising new players to start with the easy-mode fighter always felt something like a cop-out.

I'm a strong supporter of mandatory specialisation for arcane spellcasters and having both easy and complex versions of these specialisations. I don't think any potential player should be punished for their preferences.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I think they'll have 9 subclasses for the wizard (8 schools plus generalist) as they've sort of had before with the Wizards. But I certainly do hope they have some slightly more complex distinctions with these specialties. Maybe Generalist or Evoker should be the simplest expression of the Wizard, everything else should be more complex. I do see some challenges like making Diviners and Abjurers more appealing to players. With perhaps Diviners they should be slightly "leaderish" in the way they're going with Warlord stuff that's in Fighter. With Abjurer maybe they should be a slightly fighterish build of the Wizard, as I'm thinking a wizard in rune-covered armour as my image of what an abjurer should be like. Transmuter another one that's occasionally hard to think of something distinct is maybe they should give it some shape-shifting abilities. And Conjurers beyond it's spells they should try a companion much like the Pathfinder Eidolon, but nowhere near as complex as that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think this is quite right. I think the better analogy works like:

Broadly speaking, there are two types of "mundane" characters: characters who like to hit things and solve problems in a direct fashion; and characters who prefer to use guile and subtlety. The first maps to Fighter, and the second maps to Rogue.

So, I don't think that there are only two types of "mundane" characters. I disagree with your framing on this.

Mundane => Magical
Fighter => Evoker
Rogue => Illusionist

Ah, but what about those buckets of sneak attack damage? Isn't that BLOW STUFF UP? And isn't the subtle use of interrupts and opportunity actions by a 4e fighter much more nuanced and complex than "stand behind it and stab it to death"?

The style distinction of simple/complex doesn't cling to any particular class or archetype, really. It's part of why "Fighters are the simple class, wizards are the complex class" wasn't true in 4e, much to the game's credit.

 

[Dausuul]

The sort of specialization I'd like to see is thematic, and in that sense I think the OP is sort of on the right track.

I agree. I would start by listing off "wizard archetypes," and then figuring out how to build out each one into a specialization. For example:

• Elemental Blaster. This is the flashy, whiz-bang, "artillery" wizard, heavily focused on combat. There are various flavors of Elemental Blaster, one for each "element," with the most common elements being fire, cold, and lightning. (It's not unknown for a Blaster to use multiple elements, but the vast majority focus on a single one.) While Blasters' signature power is area-effect direct damage, they typically have a variety of defensive and battlefield control options as well, usually in the form of barriers, shields, terrain hazards, weather effects, and elemental-themed summons. What they don't have is subtlety.
• Dark Side Wielder. The Dark Side Wielder commands the magic of evil, night, and death. (They may not themselves be evil, but it's hard to escape corruption entirely when using these forces.) Dark Side Wielders have a strong offensive focus and target both mind and body. Their attacks on the body are insidious, causing sickness and weakness rather than straight-up damage. Where the mind is concerned, they favor the direct assault; they rout enemies with spells of terror, crush them under waves of despair, or simply seize control of their bodies, turning them into puppets. The other sub-theme of Dark Side magic is the summoning of "dark" creatures like undead and demons. The big weakness of Dark Side Wielders is their lack of defensive options.
• Hermeticist. The Hermeticist is the classic alchemist/astrologer/sage, who seeks to understand and shape the forces of the cosmos. Hermeticists use a lot of symbols and magical items. A Hermeticist is almost never seen without a magical implement of some kind, most commonly a staff or wand but sometimes an amulet or ring. They are very good at divination, and they have an array of defensive wards and protective charms at their disposal. Hermeticists also learn spells to reach across planes, allowing them to travel to other planes and summon creatures from them. Because many Hermetic spells require lengthy preparation, Hermeticists are at their weakest when caught by surprise, and their offensive abilities are quite limited.
• Trickster. Trickster magic is focused on change and deception. They are skilled shapeshifters, being able to transform both themselves and other people into animals or even inanimate objects. They are also experts with spells of illusion and concealment. Tricksters are capable of powerful mind control magic, but unlike the Dark Side Wielder they emphasize manipulation over brute domination. Charm and emotional influence are the hallmarks of Trickster mind-magic. Those who've had their minds messed with by a Trickster often have no idea anything happened.

Those are the ones I can think of offhand. I'd like to see the system designed so you can mix and match a bit; for example, if you want to make a classic "witch," you could combine Trickster and Dark Side Wielder, getting some of the benefits of each.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

The Second one is the Illusionist.

Lewis Puslipher drew this distinction in his series of "What is D&D?" articles in early White Dwarf. He also noted that, while charming a dragon is elegant, blowing one up is more exciting - hence, more players choose "evokers" than "illusionists".

(Pulsipher pulled out a couple of other archetypes too, though I can't remember them all now. I think one was "diviner".)

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

Though there was a degree of overlap between the lists: Suggestion, Hallucinatory Terrain, Phanasmal Force, Darkness, Fog Cloud, Confusion and some others. Also, and oddly, illusionists didn't get access to Charm Person/Monster.

 

[Tovec]

In the first place isn't this the difference between 3e's Sorcerer and Wizard? I mean sorcerers have blasty goodness but a limited spell and wizards can have all the spells and pick? I mean, unless I've missed something, the problem is the higher level wizards, their versatility, and enchantment (or transmutation) spells that break the game. Picking evocation OR illusion at higher levels is usually a subpar choice.

Second, part of this conversation seems to revolve around schools of magic. I agree with a couple others here that schools absolutely are not the right place to differentiate different kinds of wizards. As pemerton points out there is a lot of overlap. A reclassification and general examination of schools is a conversation I 100% want to see. Not something Wizards is likely to do but an excellent exercise anyway.

Third, if generalist wizards get spells at +1 level, specialist at +2 (off school) and 0 for school spells then isn't this the same effective difference as ... 0, +1 and -1 respectively. I mean that, wizards getting the Fly spell (and all the others) itself breaks the game when fighters don't, it doesn't matter if it happens two levels later. It was just a thought, I don't have a solution or anything.

 

[Dausuul]

In the first place isn't this the difference between 3e's Sorcerer and Wizard? I mean sorcerers have blasty goodness but a limited spell and wizards can have all the spells and pick?

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.