They're all summoners. 8\

Idunno, unless I'm missing something they don't feel THAT different from each other (aside from smaller differences).
- conjurer has some risk-reward, but he's less special in the presence of the other two
- geomancer is kind of a better version of necromancer

What are your thoughts, am I missing something?
... or should they be adjusted/tweaked so that they're pushed farther apart.

(really the same could be said about treasure hunter / thief as well, but I'd rather focus on the mage side of this issue for now)

Necromancer is nothing the same about the 2 others :
He can summon only 1 "pet" but he can performs pretty strong attacks, can be activated twice, the necromancer himself can play with defeated monsters, and you can even play his with only his familiar attacking and the nercromancer as a defensive passive tank, giving back actions to his pet and do others stuff

The geomancer and the conjurer do some things almost kind of the same.
The geomancer's stone are obstacle, and it can be either an advantage to the heroes or a big trouble. Geomancer's stone can perform 1 attack when summoned, and sometimes another one, but never freely each turn as the reanimate does but can be capped to 3. The geomancer can do a teleport, and move the monsters, the necromancer cannot, and the illusionnist can do it more efficiently.

On the other hand, the illusions of the conjurer cannot attack but can be used from them to perform attacks so gaining a bit range in the process. They are treated as heroes who never actives by themselves, and the Conjurer is the best of all descent class for the "zone control" effect, either by moving monster (vortex is a winner skill), illutional path (so monsters lose precious movement point to engage, sometimes being unable to), and can aslo teleport. Like the necromancer, it is possible to have no weapon in the end, just by controling the map, vortexing everything.

The Necromancer is the less expensive fatigue cost of all.
The Geomancer and the Conjurer, depending of your tree skills, are around the same.

So, nothing really the same to me.

You could compare the Berserker with the Skirmisher that way, they are around the same thing, but one play with 2 weapons, and the other with only 1

I agree, the necromancer and the conjurer have entirely different playstyles. The Geomancer and the conjurer can be played similarly, but they also have different strengths and weaknesses.

Summoned stones use their own MP and tend to be a little harder to destroy than image tokens. Stones also don't hurt the geomancer when they get destroyed (though the geomancer burns an action to resummon one). Image tokens are really just waypoints the conjurer can use for attacks or buff/debuff. They cost fatigue to summon (not an action) and the conjurer has to be careful not to sacrifice too many without resting/healing.

With the right hero, I think conjurer is more powerful overall, but both are quite a lot of fun to play.

I personnaly played the geomancer only once and will Never play it again. Hé is boring and useless.

The conjurer is maybe the strongest mage ever.

The necromancer is great but the beast Master almost does the same better except for some control