Dragon Shaman - Gimme something to go on here...

[Psion]

I would suggest reading the fluff for the class (often overlooked). Dragon shamans seem to derive their powers from true dragons themselves. By respecting them, studying them, and meditating on them, they infuse themselves with draconic power.

That's pretty durn close to "cuz it's magic". No, the fluff never explained why. They just like dragons and get their powers.

How do wizards get their spells?

Do you really want to know? Because I have an explanation.

Why can't dragon shaman's pull "dragonness" out of thin air.

Because that's lame.

 

[Nightfall]

Psion,

Just curious, do you follow the idea of Scarred Land wizadry or is it something else?

*agrees that pulling "dragon power" out of thin air is lame*

 

[Joshua Randall]

Once you start having arguments about how magic 'really' works in D&D, you should take a step back and ask yourself, "Is this contributing to my fun?" Because if it's not, why the heck are you arguing about it?

 

[Psion]

Once you start having arguments about how magic 'really' works in D&D, you should take a step back and ask yourself, "Is this contributing to my fun?"

What's not fun to me is a milieu that does not make sense and wherein magic stops being magic but a convenient handwave.

 

[Elemental]

What's not fun to me is a milieu that does not make sense and wherein magic stops being magic but a convenient handwave.

You should clearly define what you consider "good", well-justified magic to be, otherwise any debate is probably going to degenerate into terminology fights.

How about the other "magic but different" classes, such as the warlock, binder, truenamer or shadowcaster? Are they good or lame to you?

 

[Psion]

You should clearly define what you consider "good", well-justified magic to be, otherwise any debate is probably going to degenerate into terminology fights.

Or ignored. I came here looking for help in coming up with an absent justification, not asserting mine is right and true. You don't have to game in my campaign. I do. So I am going to game the way that works with my sense of consistency.

In a way, I have given some examples of the level of depth I expect to justify a concept (see the dreaming dragon bit), as well as a pretty clear benchmark on what is not sufficient ("because it's magic" or close variants).

I could have come up with "because it's magic" myself. I was hoping, by starting a thread, to get better than that.

How about the other "magic but different" classes, such as the warlock, binder, truenamer or shadowcaster? Are they good or lame to you?

I think you are missing something. It's not whether a given class or magic system is "lame". It's whether a given justification is.

All these classes are new. The binder comes the closest to having an actual form of magic that is both explained and justifiably distinct from magic as written. The others would have to be explained in. Some of the justifications some authors or posters might provide might be lacking, and thus, yes, lame.

 

[Tzarevitch]

My entire group thought the class was a piece of cr@p so I have never had a reason to deal with it. I thought about it for the Seren barbarians in my Eberron game, but the class is so lousy I can't bring myself to inflict it even on Seren npcs. I did use it to make dragonkin minions of a dragon but the class is so weak at high levels that I won't repeat that experiment.The class abilities just don't make much sense and don't synergize well together or well with any other class.

I just don't see what it has to do with being a "shaman". And beyond that it is not a very effective class. It is ok at low levels but weak at high levels. It also has no real feat or prestige class support to make it any better and very likely will never receive any.

Tzarevitch

 

[I'm A Banana]

I just don't see what it has to do with being a "shaman".

Venerating an iconic creature isn't shamanesque? Someone forgot to tell all those bear/eagle/wolf/coyote/whale/turtle/raven worshipers....

Administering to a tribe's religious needs isn't shamanesque?

I can't speak for the class at high levels, though I think the fact that they only really sort of half-need one high ability score can lead to a lot of customisability, and a constant reliable breath weapon is pretty nice (remember, this was before the warlock, but I still think that it compares favorably with the eldritch blast).

 

[lukelightning]

In a world where assassins cast magic spells, what's so hard to accept about a dragon shaman?

 

[Psion]

In a world where assassins cast magic spells, what's so hard to accept about a dragon shaman?

1) If a dragon shaman cast arcane or divine spells, like an assassin, I wouldn't have to explain why it deserves its own magic source. I could pull it in under the existing magic system eplanations, like the assassin.
2) Have I mentioned I'm not too fond of the default assassin being magic using in the first place? Don't assume the assassin is getting a free pass in my game, either.