Where are the other specialists?

[Gamereaper]

The Illusionist has their own spell list, where are the other specialists?

I happened to make them, but if anyone is interested, I will post them.

Leave a message to see what I got.

[grom the mighty]

The Illusionist has their own spell list, where are the other specialists?

I happened to make them, but if anyone is interested, I will post them.

Leave a message to see what I got.

A link would be cool :smallredface:

[LibraryOgre]

Assuming you mean AD&D...

The Illusionist got their own spell list in 1st edition because there were no other specialist wizards... you were a Magic-User or an Illusionist.

In 2e, no one got a special list, at least of the core specialists; they get a list of allowed and banned schools, from which you can create a list, but you don't have to.

[Rhynn]

Yeah, without any edition reference, this can be pretty confusing (unless you happen to know AD&D 1E and 2E pretty well).

[grom the mighty]

I was under the assumption that Gamereaper meant he/she'd created a list him/herself for the different wizard classes for 2ed. Not needed, but pretty useful if you've just started a specialist wizard character :smallsmile:

[Jay R]

Assuming you mean AD&D...

The Illusionist got their own spell list in 1st edition because there were no other specialist wizards... you were a Magic-User or an Illusionist.

In 2e, no one got a special list, at least of the core specialists; they get a list of allowed and banned schools, from which you can create a list, but you don't have to.

Illusionists actually got their own spell lists in original D&D, in The Strategic Review #4, the Winter 1975 issue. It was extended in an article in The Dragon #1.

They weren't a particular kind of specialist wizard; they were a separate class. And the spells weren't even divided by school yet.

[SiuiS]

Necromancer's got a book!


Illusionists actually got their own spell lists in original D&D, in The Strategic Review #4, the Winter 1975 issue. It was extended in an article in The Dragon #1.

They weren't a particular kind of specialist wizard; they were a separate class. And the spells weren't even divided by school yet.

I don't think Dragon had a definite article yet, at #1. Or maybe they hadn't dropped it yet?

Note that during this era, samurai and three flavors of additional monk and an alchemist all also got their own classes. Some more too, but those are the ones which stand out.


... Actually that old samurai in dragon magazine sort of feels like an unarmed sword sage :smalleek:

[Jay R]

I don't think Dragon had a definite article yet, at #1. Or maybe they hadn't dropped it yet?

The cover says, "The Dragon June Vol. 1, No. 1 (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4581/2076/1600/theDragon1.jpg)".


Note that during this era, samurai and three flavors of additional monk and an alchemist all also got their own classes. Some more too, but those are the ones which stand out.

Don't forget the Idiot and the Jester. There were a lot of really silly ideas in the magazine at the start. But the only character classes from the magazines that I saw people actually play with were the Bard and Illusionist. (The Ranger was pretty cool, but nobody from my group ever rolled high enough to play one.)

[SiuiS]

Hmm. Must have lost the definitive article then, rather than gaining it.

And aye, rolling. Ugh. I've never rolled high enough to play a paladin and also had a game exist that would let me do so. Never. I've rolled up paladins for 3.0 and 4.0 and the games died or I had to be a specific kind of paladin or couldn't be human or something, but I've never, not once in my life, been able to play three consecutive game sessions as just a decent paladin. Weird luck, that.