Archetypes encompassed by "wizard"?

[Sindeloke]

There's a common set of connected complaints about the wizard, as a class: because "know all the spells" is their core identity, there isn't any room for interesting class features, they step on other classes' toes, they're overpowered, they're kind of samey, they have the same lack of identity that plagues the fighter, etc etc.

So, assuming this is true, what more specific themes can the wizard be split into, around which more expansive class features and more limited spell lists could be designed? What could you build with the wizard, as it is now, that you could turn into an entire coherent class with its own concept, niche, and clear identity? Alternately, what wizard PrCs do you miss from 3.5 :smallamused:?

[Sindeloke]

My kneejerk thoughts, for what they're worth:

- Convoker
Leans into evocation and conjuration, themed around the idea of pulling people, things, and raw magical power from one place to another. Subclasses that jump out are some kind of Elementalist, oriented around direct elemental damage with a side of battlefield control via things like wall spells; a Kineticist who moves allies and enemies around with teleportation magic; idk some kind of bigby's/forcecage focused Force Guy??

- Summoner
Minionmancy. This is the most appealing thing to split off, to me, because building a base class around having a bunch of summons lets you do a lot more to control the class' action economy, and try to emulate the feel of having a bunch of mooks at your disposal without dragging fights out for six years. Potential subclasses include a Diabolist who uses the laws of magic to bind powerful demons, devils, celestials, or djinn into service; a Necromancer who manipulates souls to create hordes of disposable zombie servants; possibly a Planar Sage of some kind who calls elemental spirits into inanimate objects or materials to create golems, fire elementals, or other more druid-y sorts of critters.

- Beguiler
A favorite of many from the 3.path era. This class could specialize as an Illusionist who makes a theater of the whole world and casts friends and enemies in whatever roles they find most convenient (be that unbeatable heroes or invisible stage cast); or an Enchanter whose will shapes the world around them, weaponizing their enemies' fears, secrets, and insecurities and turning their own minions against them.

I'm not sure what to do with the other schools. Abjuration and Transmutation seem compatible, and could maybe build a class themed around buffing allies and debuffing enemies? Diviner is a fantastic subclass and an interesting concept for magic, but I'm not sure it's a deep enough school mechanically to actually build an entire class around. I suppose it could be split across Beguiler (for various detect spells) and the transjuration class (various defensive precognition spells and features)?

[Amnestic]

Alternately, what wizard PrCs do you miss from 3.5 :smallamused:?

Initiate of the Sevenfold Veils. Rainbows are fun. Magic rainbows are even more fun.

[Psyren]

Personally I am fine with wizards being defined primarily by a spell school focus. However, for those seeking an alternative - Pathfinder 2e Remaster moved wizards away from these legacy schools, and towards more functional archetypes that can be seen as specialization bundles or packages geared towards a set of common themes. Currently, these are:


Battle Magic - uses wizardry primarily for combat. Sort of a combination of Abjuration, Evocation, and War Magic.
Ars Grammatica - Word magic and spellhacking, this is the school that interacts with other magic/spells the most. Plenty of Abjuration here, but also Divination, Enchantment, and Scribes stuff.
The Boundary - Focuses on dimensional magic that conjures and channels entities/energies from beyond. Largely conjuration, but has some dashes of fear stuff and occultism from Necromancy and Illusion.
Civic Wizardry - Magic used for construction and other socially beneficial pursuits. Has bits of material Conjuration, Transmutation (largely of objects and bolstering allies), a bit of Force-based Evocation, and Divination for finding/uncovering things.
Mentalism - As the name suggests, these are the mind mages, lots of Enchantment and Illusion themed stuff here with a splash of Divination's mind-reading.
Protean Form - Plenty of fleshwarping and augmentation here, so expect a lot of Transmutation and Necromancy.
Unified Magical Theory - The Generalist school, but as in both 3.5 and PF1, what you gain in versatility you lose in throughput by having fewer preparations than the others.


If I were forced to part from 5e's current school focus I could accept something like this as a replacement. I'd like to see more of these and/or some tweaks but you can create wizards that feel not just distinct from each other, but from other primary casters using a system like this, and I think that's ultimately the goal that wizard archetypes or subclasses should strive for.

[tokek]

I quite like the wide open design space of wizard class - it lets you define your own thing within that space

With my fairy wizard (who is close to retirement from a westmarch server having gone 2-20) I realised part way through that I had been quite influenced by the old Ars Magica House Merinita in my thinking and my design. So she very much did not always have the "Best optimal spell" and there were some schools of magic that she would barely touch as they did not fit the concept at all (Necromancy is far too Shadowfell in feel for a feywild character like that). But then when you pick Chronurgy as your school you don't really need to optimise much :smallcool:

Like the houses in Ars Magica its more a theme and a tendency than a strait-jacket but it could make for a pretty decent subclass.

I feel like Necromancy probably does a decent enough job of the Shadowfell associated wizard but there is no equivalent for the Feywild.

[Rukelnikov]

Personally I'd bring back the Incantatrices who focus on spells that affect magic, and Shadowcraft Mages who make illusions of spells.

[Spore]

I go by "mage" since it sums up warlocks, sorcerers wizards, magicians and tricksters pretty nicely. I also dumb it down a lot because honestly "evoker" and "invoker" and "elementalist" can means so many things.

1) Murder peeps/destroy with the power of the elements.

2) Manipulate people's minds. Better portrayed by bards, sorcerers and warlocks, the "evil scheming vizier" ala Jafar is still a famous archetype.

3) Deal with dark forces. Ever since the warlock became a PHB class, wizards arent allowed to deal with demons. This makes me sad.

4) Necromancer - obviously.

5) Time/Space aka magic science. When you have a scifi idea but you play a fantasy RPG. Have fun summoning yourself from the future.

6) Summoner. Be it genie, demons or anything non-divine non-bestial. Actually include bestial, I still think Radagast is a wizard and not a (D&D) druid. This would lead to a tangent how horrible it is to make wildshape a mandatory druid feature, so better leave it.

7) Seer/Diviner. The dude who knows must get their info from somewhere. And in the absence of mystical archives, and no internet connection you gotta divine ****.

8) Promethean - builders of technological wonders based in magic. Be it golems, warforged. And yes, artificers are just balanced mages. In any sensible system not aimed to sell more books and present cooler classes, they would just be wizards, but with tools.

[Dalinar]

I usually just handwave these sorts of things as "it depends on what you want out of the game, subjectively." However:


Personally I am fine with wizards being defined primarily by a spell school focus. However, for those seeking an alternative - Pathfinder 2e Remaster moved wizards away from these legacy schools, and towards more functional archetypes that can be seen as specialization bundles or packages geared towards a set of common themes. Currently, these are:


Battle Magic - uses wizardry primarily for combat. Sort of a combination of Abjuration, Evocation, and War Magic.
Ars Grammatica - Word magic and spellhacking, this is the school that interacts with other magic/spells the most. Plenty of Abjuration here, but also Divination, Enchantment, and Scribes stuff.
The Boundary - Focuses on dimensional magic that conjures and channels entities/energies from beyond. Largely conjuration, but has some dashes of fear stuff and occultism from Necromancy and Illusion.
Civic Wizardry - Magic used for construction and other socially beneficial pursuits. Has bits of material Conjuration, Transmutation (largely of objects and bolstering allies), a bit of Force-based Evocation, and Divination for finding/uncovering things.
Mentalism - As the name suggests, these are the mind mages, lots of Enchantment and Illusion themed stuff here with a splash of Divination's mind-reading.
Protean Form - Plenty of fleshwarping and augmentation here, so expect a lot of Transmutation and Necromancy.
Unified Magical Theory - The Generalist school, but as in both 3.5 and PF1, what you gain in versatility you lose in throughput by having fewer preparations than the others.


If I were forced to part from 5e's current school focus I could accept something like this as a replacement. I'd like to see more of these and/or some tweaks but you can create wizards that feel not just distinct from each other, but from other primary casters using a system like this, and I think that's ultimately the goal that wizard archetypes or subclasses should strive for.

This is a really solid start, actually, at least for how I think about it personally. If we accept that magical spells can be performed by studying their mechanics in a way reminiscent of modern STEM education, then it stands to reason that people would specialize within that field based on roles society needs, right? Battle Magic and Civic Wizardry would probably be two of the first applications humanity would look into if spellcasting was discovered tomorrow, knowing us. Boundary wouldn't be too far behind, given how much effort we put into getting people from point A to point B (assuming it covers things like Dimension Door as well as Gate).

[Anonymouswizard]

Personally I think Wizards should be The Knowledge Class, which they're already partially due to being one of two INT based classes and being encouraged to invest in knowledge skills. Both the Wizard and Artificer can give you the solution if you'll give them six weeks and a decanter of endless coffee, but while the Artificer comes out of the lab with a new magic item the wizard comes out of the library with a mountain of notes and a plan.

To that end I'd 1) swap the Wizard's 'casts spells betterer' features for ones themed around exploitation of knowledge and 2) change their subclass from 'school of magic' to 'field of study'. I'd also trim their spell list and possibly drop them to one free spell per level, but in exchange give them subclass spells they add to their spell books for free.

My favourite wizard character I got to play was a botanist who used nature magic (his signature spells were 'create mud' and 'plant growth'). They were very much a wizard, not a druid or nature Cleric, and yet I'd never be able to recreate them in D&D as the Wizard list just doesn't cover the kind of magic he used.

[Mastikator]

IMO the central theme of wizards is that they understand magic and spellcraft, they are the scientists and programmers of the mystical arts. However since many in-setting themes tend to be pretty broad I'd argue there are few themes that are wizard exclusive, and many that are wizard inclusive.


Magitech is under the domain of wizardry (and artifice)
Witchcraft can fall under the domain of wizardry, but also sorcery or warlock
Arcane studies (knowledge of the planes, outsiders, knowledge of supernatural phenomena) leans heavily to wizards, and a distant second to some warlocks
Invention of spells is IMO strictly in the domain of wizards among mortals
Creation of magical constructs like golems and homonculi is strictly a wizard and artifice thing
Learning spells from scrolls and spellbooks (though I think bards should work like that too, but in place of arcane formulae they have arcane musical notation)


Very little solely belongs to wizards, but I think that's true of every class, and it's fine.

[KorvinStarmast]

I go by "mage" since it sums up warlocks, sorcerers wizards, magicians and tricksters pretty nicely. Or Magic User. :smallsmile:

[Anonymouswizard]

Or Magic User. :smallsmile:

Magician :smallwink:

[Psyren]

Personally I think Wizards should be The Knowledge Class, which they're already partially due to being one of two INT based classes and being encouraged to invest in knowledge skills. Both the Wizard and Artificer can give you the solution if you'll give them six weeks and a decanter of endless coffee, but while the Artificer comes out of the lab with a new magic item the wizard comes out of the library with a mountain of notes and a plan.

To that end I'd 1) swap the Wizard's 'casts spells betterer' features for ones themed around exploitation of knowledge and 2) change their subclass from 'school of magic' to 'field of study'. I'd also trim their spell list and possibly drop them to one free spell per level, but in exchange give them subclass spells they add to their spell books for free.

My favourite wizard character I got to play was a botanist who used nature magic (his signature spells were 'create mud' and 'plant growth'). They were very much a wizard, not a druid or nature Cleric, and yet I'd never be able to recreate them in D&D as the Wizard list just doesn't cover the kind of magic he used.

Land Druid is meant to be the "nature magician"/"{insert biome} witch" though. That's what, say, Radagast would be if he were translated to D&D, at least imo.

[KorvinStarmast]

Land Druid is meant to be the "nature magician"/"{insert biome} witch" though. That's what, say, Radagast would be if he were translated to D&D, at least imo.Circle of the land? Yes.

[Anonymouswizard]

Land Druid is meant to be the "nature magician"/"{insert biome} witch" though. That's what, say, Radagast would be if he were translated to D&D, at least imo.

Yes, but Eckhart wasn't a druid or witch, he was a wizard and botanist. In fact in-universe he was part of a movement to modernise his school of magic (the setting being a homebrew Warhammer Fantasy spinoff), while he still wore the jade robes he dropped most of the outright druid aspects in favour of carrying tools and samples in a satchel and having very nicely groomed hair thank you very much. The entire point of playing him was to play a nature wizard, someone who loved nature and expressed that by studying it.

Also his signature spell was creating mud, entirely because I remembered that Jade Magic can do that and it seemed like a fun idea.

[Psyren]

You still haven't described anything a Land Druid can't do, but I'm happy to drop it.

[sandmote]

I do think "generalist whose power comes from spells" isn't a well defined archetype, but I think that's the point with wizards in particular: I can grab whatever spells I need to fit a character concept, rather than having my class features define it. The sameyness only seems to set in when you don't have any concept beyond "wizard" or "uses a spell book," or can't access your concept's main spells at the current level (ex: necromancers before 5th level).

For me, the identity is that I can make my caster who doesn't fit inside any of the printed archetypes and work acceptably well. My water wizard character could still function as a transmuter, diviner, or conjurer rather than an abjurer, but its the water effects I'm primarily looking for. That sort of concept is much easier to fit into the wizard than other classes where you are going to require a specific subclass to hold the concept together.

The other concept is someone who gets where they get by studying and preparedness, which I think is somewhat shared with the artificer and what I expect from an Intelligence base character more than a Wisdom or Charisma based one. Yes, the clerics, and the druids, and bards (plus some warlocks) do take a lot of effort to get there, but that's not really the central point of the character where they picked up a concept of your choice and figured out all the little details to make it work. The cleric and bard are focused on a big thing and how to apply it, and the druid (and warlocks) on how to get what they want out of the thing they're studying, but all three (and a half) have one particular thing they're studying: religion, nature, or music (or the patron's effet). The wizard can be studying anything and typically reflect that focus of expertise. 5e doesn't do this as well as high level 3.5e because its trying to rein in the power a little, but it's still there.


They were very much a wizard, not a druid or nature Cleric, and yet I'd never be able to recreate them in D&D as the Wizard list just doesn't cover the kind of magic he used. The wizard spell list doesn't include all the stuff other classes get by default, but if you're going for a character concept over optimization I don't think letting them access some druid spells will break anything. Your DM may vary, of course, but trading wildshape and access to the entire spell list to get closer to a particular character concept seems acceptable to me. Of course, I'm mostly on the opposite side of the 3.5e "we have rules to tell you how each character was made" mindset, so I can't say how widespread this feeling is.


3) Deal with dark forces. Ever since the warlock became a PHB class, wizards arent allowed to deal with demons. This makes me sad. I mean, they are allowed to do that; the edition's method of demonstrating typical deals with demons is just separate from learning your spells manually. I think its more that there's two spells for conjuring demons, neither of which play nice with the party, and one summon spell for a generic demon/devil/yugoloth. Not even one where you can summon a devil, bargain with it, and have it unsummon itself when the terms of the deal are met (or if no agreement is reached).

If you do want demonic powers on a wizard, I recommend checking out pages 227-8 of the DMG, which has an alternative method of rewarding players that should work as a class agnostic method for making a long term pact with a demon. There's several suggestions which read as "this PC and only this PC gets to use the effects of a particular magic item," so they don't affect game very differently from providing a magic item to the party. Mostly just they can't be sold, transferred to whichever PC would use them most optimally, or taken away when the party is captured. It could be worth talking to your DM about.

[LibraryOgre]

Wizard as a generalist class, with your subclass determining your spell list.

Some wizards use the bard spell list. Others use the Druid, or Cleric, or Warlock spell list.

[Anonymouswizard]

You still haven't described anything a Land Druid can't do, but I'm happy to drop it.

I mean there was also a lot of Druid stuff gems didn't have, from the commonly associated fluff aspects to shape shifting (which should really get it's own dedicated class). 5e is also in a weird place where some of the classes get ties to the world and some just don't, and as I'm AFB I can't remember if the Druid does.

[KorvinStarmast]

Magician :smallwink: That was a level six magic user ... :smallyuk:

You still haven't described anything a Land Druid can't do, but I'm happy to drop it. Can't wild shape into anything higher than CR 1. :smallwink: I confess to having gotten a realy kick out of my Monk 1 / Moon Druid 10 wild shaping into
(1) a giant scorpion
(2) an air elemental

[Psyren]

That was a level six magic user ... :smallyuk:
Can't wild shape into anything higher than CR 1. :smallwink: I confess to having gotten a realy kick out of my Monk 1 / Moon Druid 10 wild shaping into
(1) a giant scorpion
(2) an air elemental

A wizard can't wild shape either, so.

[KorvinStarmast]

A wizard can't wild shape either, so.
Wait, were you two comparing Circle of the Land druid and wizard, spot for spot?

[Anonymouswizard]

A wizard can't wild shape either, so.

Exactly! Eckhart had an otter familiar and no ability to become a ferret!

Mostly this is me liking subclass spells and wishing they were a thing all casters got, but I do think wizards in 5e are funneled towards a handful of kinds of magic. Heck, Fighters should get subclass spells :smallwink: [color=white]Honestly with 5e being geared for high magic I'd have no issue with Fighters and Rogues being redone as 1/3 casters.[/colored]

[Psyren]

Wait, were you two comparing Circle of the Land druid and wizard, spot for spot?

I was responding to this statement from Anon:




My favourite wizard character I got to play was a botanist who used nature magic (his signature spells were 'create mud' and 'plant growth'). They were very much a wizard, not a druid or nature Cleric, and yet I'd never be able to recreate them in D&D as the Wizard list just doesn't cover the kind of magic he used.


I viewed that as a mindset issue rather than a mechanical deficiency in either class.

[LibraryOgre]

My solution: Wizards are the only full spellcasters. They have a huge variety of spells, the "Arcane Recovery" feature, and a couple of subclass-specific abilities. But that's it.

Everyone else is some variety of lesser caster, but they have class abilities. Druids have a smaller spell list and fewer slots, but they can wild shape. Clerics have a smaller spell list and fewer slots, but they have various divine abilities.

[Sigreid]

The way I see it the wizard is the one who understands magic. The cleric and warlock weild magic gifted or brought out by a divine power. The sorcerer weilds magic through talent and a blood/spiritual connection to magical beings. The bard weilds magic powers gleaned from the legends and songs of his people. It's the wizard and the wizard alone that knows not just how to weild his magic, but knows exactly how and why it works.

[Anonymouswizard]

The way I see it the wizard is the one who understands magic. The cleric and warlock weild magic gifted or brought out by a divine power. The sorcerer weilds magic through talent and a blood/spiritual connection to magical beings. The bard weilds magic powers gleaned from the legends and songs of his people. It's the wizard and the wizard alone that knows not just how to weild his magic, but knows exactly how and why it works.

And Clerics of various Knowledge and Magic deities never bothered to do thus research because...?

Like yes a lot of deities of magic get Cleric/Wizard multi class disciples, but not every god of knowledge is a god of magic, and many 'gods of magic' are 100% worshipable via lenses that don't bring magic into the picture. Knowledge is even a core domain.

That's not getting into the idea of characters who learn wizardry by rote without the underlying mechanics.

Plus if anything the class that indicates a deeper knowledge of magic is the SORCERER, who's spells can be fiddled with to not behave as intended.

[Theodoxus]

Wizard as a generalist class, with your subclass determining your spell list.

Some wizards use the bard spell list. Others use the Druid, or Cleric, or Warlock spell list.


My solution: Wizards are the only full spellcasters. They have a huge variety of spells, the "Arcane Recovery" feature, and a couple of subclass-specific abilities. But that's it.

Everyone else is some variety of lesser caster, but they have class abilities. Druids have a smaller spell list and fewer slots, but they can wild shape. Clerics have a smaller spell list and fewer slots, but they have various divine abilities.

I'm assuming these are taken together? So if you're wanting to cast a high level spell from the Cleric spell list, you need to be a Wizard. Else, you're maxing out at 5th or so, but have things like Channel Divinity and Divine Intervention? I like that. It fits with my general re-work of the Cleric class, where subclasses are built around armor proficiency rather than domain.


The way I see it the wizard is the one who understands magic. The cleric and warlock wield magic gifted or brought out by a divine power. The sorcerer wields magic through talent and a blood/spiritual connection to magical beings. The bard wields magic powers gleaned from the legends and songs of his people. It's the wizard and the wizard alone that knows not just how to wield his magic, but knows exactly how and why it works.

That also fits with my homebrew campaign world that uses nanites that were originally written to augment reality. Wizards study and learn to write new code. Everyone else uses traditional code 'spells' that have been around 'forever'. Sorcerers were born infused with nanites and can just instinctively 'will' magic into existence without really knowing why. Of course, only the most dedicated of Wizards even understand a modicum of the ancient, pre-apocalyptic tech that the nanites run on - and even the nanites themselves over the course of millennia have slowly been changed by arcane, divine, and primal energy being spewed forth by various portals and such from the outer planes.

[Sigreid]

And Clerics of various Knowledge and Magic deities never bothered to do thus research because...?

Like yes a lot of deities of magic get Cleric/Wizard multi class disciples, but not every god of knowledge is a god of magic, and many 'gods of magic' are 100% worshipable via lenses that don't bring magic into the picture. Knowledge is even a core domain.

That's not getting into the idea of characters who learn wizardry by rote without the underlying mechanics.

Plus if anything the class that indicates a deeper knowledge of magic is the SORCERER, who's spells can be fiddled with to not behave as intended.
Yep, in my headcannon clerics of knowledge and magic that delve into true understanding of magic get levels of wizard. And also in my head cannon, sorcerers don't understand the mechanics the way the wizard does and their metamagic can be done not because they understand magic better, but because their actual nature being closer to the magic allows them to feel it more and thus nudge the magic real time, twisting it a little. Similar to how magical creatures can intuitively perform feats of magic that men cannot.

[LibraryOgre]

I'm assuming these are taken together? So if you're wanting to cast a high level spell from the Cleric spell list, you need to be a Wizard. Else, you're maxing out at 5th or so, but have things like Channel Divinity and Divine Intervention? I like that. It fits with my general re-work of the Cleric class, where subclasses are built around armor proficiency rather than domain.

Pretty much, yeah. If you want everyone else to stop stepping on the Wizard's schtick, stop giving them tons of spells, which has long been the wizard's schtick.

[greenstone]

IMO the central theme of wizards is that they understand magic and spellcraft, they are the scientists and programmers of the mystical arts.

That is my take on them. A wizard doesn't rely on innate powers (sorcerer) or asking powerful entities (cleric, warlock, paladin maybe) - they've learnt magic solely through study and practice and research.

Wizards are the only ones who understand magic, who know the underlying theory behind it, so they are the ones who modify spells and create new ones.

[Witty Username]

That is my take on them. A wizard doesn't rely on innate powers (sorcerer) or asking powerful entities (cleric, warlock, paladin maybe) - they've learnt magic solely through study and practice and research.

Wizards are the only ones who understand magic, who know the underlying theory behind it, so they are the ones who modify spells and create new ones.
A personal note to add,
It is also magic that is beholden to no one, so the rules are defined by what as possible rather than what is in the scope of the bloodlines and contracts.
This should give each wizard a sense of individualism.
--
Wizard should have some level of broadness, to hang subclasses on, the focus IMO, would be what things are broad enough to warrant their own subclasses. As well as things that are thematicly exclusive, but wizard doesn't have that as bad (the core premise is magic is learnable, so the constraints should be time and patience, not X and Y don't mix).

Sorcerer is my counter-example/punching bag. Where not only do the archetypes suggest subclasses (dragonblood, which dragon? But the archetypes suggest radical thematic differences. Aberrant mind and dragonblooded don't really have any strong thematic overlap.

But what I could see for subdividing wizard:
Mage as Technician
Mage as Artist
Mage as Acedemic

Technician is about cold purpose, and specific skills. They should do a thing and do it well. Subclasses whould be like professions or roles:
Transporter
Devistator
Seer
What is there function and how do they do it.

Artist is about self expression and the performative aspect of mage, abilities should be a bit scattered across archetypes and be more about vibes than strict roles, subclasses would be the theme of expression:
Wild mage
Bladesinger
Illusionist

Acedemic is about foundational knowledge and and magic as the end goal rather than a means to an end, subclasses would be how they interact with that goal:
Researcher
Preserver
Teacher

[2D8HP]

My favorite “archtype” for a Magician character should be a “delver in secrets men aren’t meant to know, something like:
Aeëtes in Jason and the Argonauts. Circe in Homer's The Odyssey, Elezer Whateley in Lovecraft’s “The Dunwich Horror”, Hristomilo from Leiber’s “Ill Met in Lankhmar”, Koura in The Golden Voyage of Sinbad, Morgan le Fay in Malory’s Le Morte d'Arthur, Tolkien’s Saruman, Sokurah in The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, Yara in Howard’s “The Tower of the Elephant"; some like Medea in Jason and the Argonauts may perhaps be initially benevolent, but as they cast more and more spells all shall in time they will be doomed and turn to evil, perhaps something like the Call of Cthulhu game’s “sanity” mechanic should be employed to track a magician’s character’s inevitable descent into damnation, definitely their should be a change in Alignment so that they eventually become Evil, and as their madness afflicts their mind they should become Chaotic as well. None (if they live long enough) should stay good and sane like Tolkien’s Gandalf, or Le Guin’s Ged.

Perhaps a Magician may be redeemed like Star Wars’ Darth Vader, but they shouldn’t live long afterwards.

In terms of 5e D&D rules I imagine the Magician as a hodgepodge of a 1e D&D Magic-User (5e Wizard) and a 5e Warlock

Whether there should one or two classes (to give the Sorcerer and the Witch different enough flavors) is a level of rules fine tuning that I’m not particularly interested in, but ideally one should be able to play a Magician class as simply as a 5e Champion fighter, or as with as many options as a current 5e Spell caster.

I really don’t want any fully long lived benevolent Magician characters because thematically I want a Law/mortals versus Chaos/magic & monsters milieu.