It seems that when it comes to making a 5E Wizard, a "generalist" mage is not an option; you have to choose a specialty school. Am I missing something?
Yes, you're missing the fact that "specialist" does not require you to lose any benefits. It only adds to your power. Therefore there is no downside to picking a specialisation. You'll be able to cast just as many spells from just as many schools as any other wizard.
That's how subclasses break down. When the DMG drops you'll be able to make your own subclass.
Make a generalist. Post it. It'll be neat!
bawylie wrote:
Heh. I would totally allow someone to be a generalist Wizard. If you want to give up a major class feature, I'm sure not going to stop you 
Lord_Phobetor wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
As others have said, being a specialist doesn't incur penalties anymore. You no longer lose access to "opposing" schools, and you don't take a penalty on spells not in your focused school. All picking a school subclass does in 5e is make spells from that school stronger and grant you some other bonuses tied to that schools focus of casting. An evocation specialist can shape any spell he casts, not just evocations, he can also still cast from all 7 of the other schools rather than giving up learning from 2 other schools.
1-2nd level wizards are generalists, at 3rd level they choose a school to focus on and they gain from there. The generalist doesn't have a purpose in 5e as there's no penalties tied to having a school focus. Think of the 5e wizard as a generalist who at 3rd level takes the school focus feat rather than being a specialist wizard.
Of course you could create a generalist subclass but you'd have to make it worthwhile to take since most wouldn't want to give up a variety of class features just so they can say they're a generalist. Look at real world professions, most aren't generalists except at the start of their careers. After a few years (levels) they tend to focus on certain areas, it doesn't mean they can't do stuff outside their focus anymore, they just get better at the area they've focused on than those who haven't focused on it. A heart surgeon can still do other surgeries and diagnose conditions, they just are better at heart surgery than everything else, and better at it than the pediatrician who focuses on children health issues, who in turn is better at pediatrics than the heart surgeon.
Being a specialist might not give you any penalties, but it *does* commit you to a specific flavour, giving you abilities that slant your character in a particular direction. By pure RAW, Evoker is the closest you're going to get to a generalist Wizard, it's the only subclass in the basic rules, and it basically gives you flat bonuses to spells you will in all likelihood be casting anyway.
I agree that a generalist subclass would be a good addition.
--
Edited to add
A simple Generalist might be to use the Magical Secrets feature of the Bard, allowing the Generalist to select two spells from any list at 6th, 10th, and 14th levels.
Their level 2 "savant" feature could be "Ritual Savant" (time and gold requirements for scribing spells with the Ritual feature are halved), which means that all they'd need would be a level two "flavour" power.
I don't see how it is any different than having to choose a Warlock Pact (there's no generic warlock) or having to choose an Archetype as a ranger (there's no generic ranger).
It's the way that all the classes work now. You choose a specialized path and advance in it.
autolycus wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
You could always do as an earlier poster said and ignore every Arcane Tradition benefit of the wizard class.
I'd say that if you want a generalist-style wizard, pick a Diviner. They get:
- More spell slots (when casting Divination spells).
- Altered d20 rolls. (Doesn't really lock you into any type of spells.)
- A special perception ability which is probably useful to all wizards. (You can always default to comprehending all written languages.)
Alternatively, Abjurer has some pretty nice benefits even if you choose to ignore the Arcane Ward benefit:
- You can add your proficiency to your dispel magic and counterspell rolls. That's a pretty good general benefit for Wizards to have.
- You get spell resistance and resistance to spell damage.
What about a "generalist" wizard appeals to you? The very definition of a generalist in previous editions was a lack of special abilities and drawbacks. Given that 5e specialists don't have any drawbacks, it would seem a little strange for a person to want to pick a lack of special benefits over something useful to their character.
Well, as has been said, there's always the option to create subclasses.... Personally, instead of creating a "generalist" subclass, I'd create subclasses that don't specialize in a school of magic and instead focus on other things (you could draw inspiration from the wizard kits in the 2e Complete Wizard's Handbook, for instance). That way they'd effectively be generalists, but also have an interestic niche to boot.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
I agree with 2Chlorobutanal that some Wizard specialisations feel a lot more generic than others. I think Conjurers, Enchanters, Illusionists and Necromancers rely on a particular "style" if they are going to make the most of their abilities. Abjurers and Evokers seem to be the ones with the most general feel, being basically defensive and offensive casters respectively. Diviners feel fairly strongly flavoured to me in that they get a lot of mileage out of their "Portent" ability, which gives them a strong flavour of relying on "foretelling."
autolycus wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Well, old-school prestiges and base classes are all wrapped together. EK is essentially an EK, Duskblade, AA, etc. your choice. The point about generalist wizards is valid in that regard, as that is a net loss at this point.
What I hope to see is how the real flavor-PRCs map, if at all, esp. those that are not hard-coded to a base class. I'm running a Paladin > Bone Knight in a game I'm playing. Some of the conversion will be easy, but some don't map precisely as class-based path items come in at slightly different levels (7 on paladin and 6 on necromancer, for instance) - so it makes some things a tad wonky. It would have been GREAT if they could have mapped those more tightly to make conversions easier.
Will the Artificer/Clockwork Mage/Mechanician be a subclass, or an entirely new class?
This is like asking why you have to declare a major in college.
Whatever you choose, you get a general education in adition to whatever you focus on.
Just don't pick one. Doesn't seem like too hard a house rule to me. Not sure why you wouldn't, they all have cool features that only add to a Wizard.
I'll take a stab at the mechanics of it. I'm not as good at writing fluff, but just sort of a sum-up would be that these are meant to evoke the feeling of versatility, overall magical/arcane aptitude, and jack-of-all-[wizard]-trades, master-of-none ness. It's meant to be roughly balanced against the other eight subclasses. Also, was done hastily. Feedback welcome. (I feel 'Wizardry Basics' and 'Advanced Wizardry' were a bit of a cop-out, creativity-wise, but I remember things like Traveler's Harlequin and Eternal Seeker, in 4th ed, had similar things which were reasonably balanced and popular...)
Generalist Wizard
Broad Aptitude: Beginning when you select Generalist Wizard at 2nd level, the gold and time you must spend to copy a spell into your spellbook is reduced by 10%.
Versatile Spells: Starting at 2nd level when you choose Generalist Wizard, you gain one extra prepared spell slot above what you would normally have for your intelligence and wizard level, and you know one extra cantrip, which you may select from any wizard cantrip. Whenever you gain a level, you may change the extra cantrip that you have gained from this feature.
Wizardry Basics: At 6th level, you gain one 2nd level ability of your choice (other than 'Savant' abilities) from any specialty school wizard subclass. You may change this selection whenever you gain a level.
Arcana Expertise: Starting at 10th level, you gain proficiency in the Arcana skill, and may apply double your proficiency bonus when making Arcana checks. If you already have proficiency in the Arcana skill, you may instead gain proficiency in another skill (but the double bonus applies only to Arcana.)
Advanced Wizardry: At 14th level, you gain one 6th or 10th level ability of your choice from any specialty school wizard subclass. You may change this selection whenever you gain a level.
I'm not sure about letting generalists get the specialisations of other specialisations, that seems to defat the purpose. It essentially makes a generalist into an only-slightly-less-specialised specialist.
I still something like the Bard's Magical Secrets could work, of course that has the peculiar side effect of giving a generalist access to spells that are inaccessible even to wizards specialised in the same school.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
IMO, people are hanging past-edition baggage on the word "specialist". And it is unwarranted.
This edition, "specialization" is nothing more than the character's particular knack. Along the way to becoming a full-fledged wizard, the character has found that a certain type of magic comes more naturally to them. Or an easier type manipulating. Whathaveyou.
Everyone has a knack. Everyone has something that comes easily to them. Everyone has something they excel at. For a wizard, where so much of their life is invested in harnessing and mastering the power or arcane magic, it’s no different.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
A generalist or universalist wizard would be cool. But with eight subclasses already (when so many classes only recieved two) the wizard is already a bit of a page hog.
I'm not really sure you can be called a 'generalist' if you give it something extra for taking it, seems like a name for a different kind of specialist at that point. It's ok to want a different mix of abilities, maybe the DMG will add some options or something.
The defining feature of a generalist used to be "can potentially learn every wizard spell" which no specialist could do. Now, every wizard can potentially learn every wizard spell, making the "generalist" seem redundant.
Having played AD&D for countless years, I disagree.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I'll give it a go:
Tradition: Arcane Scholar (General Wizard) - learn 1 additional spell to your spellbook at levels 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9.
Level 2: Arcane Savant -- add proficiency bonus to the number preparation slots per day.
Level 2: Extra Training -- gain one additional cantrip
Level 6: Arcane Secrets -- add two 1st level spells and one second level spell to your spellbook from any class spell list
Level 10: Improved Arcane Recovery -- add proficiency bonus to the number of spell slots recovered during a short rest.
Level 14: Extra Spell Mastery -- Choose 1st level spell that you have in your spell book. You can cast that spell at it's lowest level without expending a slot.
It largely just expands on what already exists.
Lord_Phobetor wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Really?
A few examples:
Evocation Specialty: You excel at evocation magic. Here are some evocation upgrades for you to signify that.
Necromancy Specialty: You excel at necromantic magic. Here are some necromancy upgrades for you to signify that.
Enchantment Specialty: You excel at enchantment magic. Here are some enchanting upgrades for you to signify that.
Now this:
Generalist Specialty: You are just better at everything in general. Here are some universal upgrades for you to do whatever you want with.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Here's another explanation:
Wizard #1 (Let's say, an Evocation Specialist): "I'm a wizard. I am able to use my magic to resolve all manner of problems. My power and usefulness comes from my flexible. But when it comes to things I have a true gift for, evocation magic in particular, I really shine. That's my knack."
Wizard #2 (Your Generalist Specialist): "I'm a wizard. I am able to use my magic to resolve all manner of problems. My power and usefulness comes from my flexible. But when it comes to things I have a true gift for, any kind of magic, I really shine. So basically all the time."
I could see reducing the discount specialists get on copying school spells to a reasonable amount for the generalist.
And while I think it wouldn't be game breaking, I'm not sure how I'd feel about letting a generalist just choose a level appropriate ability from the school abilities.
It's not flavorful. And it still makes the generalist still "feel" better than the others.
EDIT: Maybe some kind of bonus to spell identification?
Maybe something like the Arcane Trickster's steal spell? You can use that spell a limited number of times, and it doesn't prevent the original caster from using it again?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
You keep quoting my point then wondering what my point is.
Odd.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Ravenmancer wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
I am sure if you opted not to pick a speciality your GM would allow it.
I like it, because as people have already pointed out it's not the oldschool 'specialization' where you take penalties. I think of it as picking a major. You have to do that in college. Wizards are acedemic PCs.
I am, of course, not opposed to a 'generalist' build. As long as it isn't OP compared to ther wizards. But it's not a glaring hole in the game that really needs fixing. If I had a PC who really hated 'picking' a speciality; I'd just let them take a few. Maybe get the level 3 envoker ability, and the level x, y, z, etc. abilities from another speciality in the PHB. Hopefully that'd solve the problem. I am against a 'generalist' build that allows for more spell slots. That qualifies as OP, IMO.
I'm worried about what I keep hearing about the Ranger being weak, underpowered, uninspired, etc. The Wizard is doing JUST FINE, lol.
Chaosmancer wrote:
I keep seeing people who want the generalist to be "more versatile" but the wizard--ANY wizard--is by its very nature one of if not THE most versatile class in the game already.
Ashrym wrote:
Allright so now that I'm home and near my books, I'm gonna try my hand at making a Generalist:
Generalist:
As a generalist wizard, you're not as adept at any one school of magic as one who specializes. But what you lack in quality, you make up in quantity.
Ritual Savant:
Begining at second level when you choose not to specialize in any school, the gold and time you must spend to copy any spell that can be cast as a ritual is halved.
Versatile:
When you reach second level, you learn an aditional Cantrip
Prepared:
Starting at sixth level, you may count your intelligence modifier twice when determining how many spells you can prepare.
Indecisive:
Once per day starting at 10th level, you may spend 10 minutes to trade out a number of prepared spells equal to your Intellignece modifier. You may do this as part of a short rest.
At 14th level you may do this a second time before taking a long rest. In addition, you may perform this as a standard action. If you do so you may trade out only one prepared spell.
Chaosmancer wrote:
Ravenmancer wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Lord_Phobetor wrote:
"You are a Generalist.
At 2nd level, 6th level, 10th level, and 14 level you may add one addition spell of any level you have slots to cast to your spell book.
At 2nd level, 6th level, 10th level and 14th level you increase the number of spells you may prepare in a day by 1. This does not change the number of slots you have to cast those spells."
Done.
Ravenmancer wrote:
Personally, I'd rather that mage classes were more focussed. Pick a primary school of magic, choose one secondary, and that's that. Honestly, I really have a dislike for 'generalist' wizards, because it sort of flies in the face of 'he's an enchanter, he's a conjurer, he's an illusionist', sort of stuff. When I make a mage, I choose a category of spells, and stick with it as much as possible.
Honestly, I'd like to see a 'fire mage' archetype, a 'frost mage' archetype, an 'illusionist' archetype. This may be something I do when I've got the three books and have finished moving. I applauded my sister when she made her sorcerer that used the druid spell list, and used only plant-based spells, ignoring all other spells as 'things I cannot cast'. It restricted the character to all hell, but it made the character feel a lot more natural and gave it a strong theme.
Obviously, not for everyone - but that's my personal preference.
Eric888 wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Lord_Phobetor wrote:
I think the 5e wizard is already versitile and powerful enough.
Plus, as many have pointed out, they don't take any penalties from specializing. Their will also be arcane splatbooks in the coming years.
IMO, trying to shoe horn in an even more versitile 'generalist' build is verging on game-breaking in it's OP-ness. Obviously, some tables want uber casters. If that's the case, go for it.
i agree, there should be a generalist mage sub class. It would certainly be nice to have a class for all those great and famous NPC wizards.
dmgorgon wrote: