D&D 5E Help Me Design This Class

[Tony Vargas]

In general I think it's a mistake to let class concepts from previous editions lay claim to class names. .

'Mistake' implies choice - once a name's been used, anything re-using it will be unable to avoid being seen as a 'version' of it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

'Mistake' implies choice - once a name's been used, anything re-using it will be unable to avoid being seen as a 'version' of it.

By how many people, how deeply, for how long? And by which people?

Does Wizards even care about the debates that take place here, for example? (I hope not.)

Back when the iPod first came out, the Slashdot community immediately panned it. "Brand X has twice the storage at half the price!" "There's no FM radio!" "OMG it doesn't support Ogg Vorbis...it will die a painful death." Of course, Apple wasn't marketing to the tiny handful of self-acknowledged experts who lurk on Slashdot; they were marketing to the whole world. The Slashdotters were pissed that the iPod didn't support open standards, but I think even more pissed to discover that the world doesn't care what Slashdotters think.

So, uh, yeah. That.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled thread.

 

[steeldragons]

You can call it "Hippo in a Tutu," for all I care.

This is your homebrew class, after all. You can call it whatever you want. I was going with Spiritwalker because, to me, it was more generic. Shaman has more of the built-in flavor (and expectations that come with that). Again, to me/my mind.

I can squint and see a "Witch" PC that is an offshoot/specific definition of "spiritwalker." I have more difficulty doing that with "Shaman." Sp that's where I was coming from.

If all you want is a cackling, as you say "fairy tale witch", "Wicked Crone" then I'm not sure why it is being built into a PC option at all. (and not 100% on squinting to see it in a "Shaman" framework. But that's the fun of homebrewing and trying to come up with stuff to make it fit/work. )

Either way, this isn't my thread or class. So if you want the base class called "Shaman," then Shaman it is.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You can call it "Hippo in a Tutu," for all I care.

This is your homebrew class, after all. You can call it whatever you want. I was going with Spiritwalker because, to me, it was more generic. Shaman has more of the built-in flavor (and expectations that come with that). Again, to me/my mind.

I can squint and see a "Witch" PC that is an offshoot/specific definition of "spiritwalker." I have more difficulty doing that with "Shaman." Sp that's where I was coming from.

If all you want is a cackling, as you say "fairy tale witch", "Wicked Crone" then I'm not sure why it is being built into a PC option at all. (and not 100% on squinting to see it in a "Shaman" framework. But that's the fun of homebrewing and trying to come up with stuff to make it fit/work. )

Either way, this isn't my thread or class. So if you want the base class called "Shaman," then Shaman it is.

I also agree with all of those points. There's no perfect solution (yet).

 

[Greg K]

Circle of Spirits: a simple 5e Shaman
The Circle of the Spirits druid is initiated into the mysteries of shamanic practices and animistic rites, communing and controlling the creatures of the spirit world. Be they nature spirits, demonic or angelic beings, revered ancestors or the recent dead, the shaman is the person a community looks to to interact with and make sense of the unseen worlds often taken for granted by some cultures, dismissed as superstition by others.

I like that you included demonic or angelic beings. Most people don't realize that from an anthropological perspective, they are spirits. Most people also focus on animal totems (and sometimes nature spirit in general and either forget or are unaware that, in many cultures,ancestral spirit that acts as the guide.

Also how are djinn, rakshasa and elementals classified in 5e?

2nd: Spirit Sense: You can detect (and see even if invisible or in the border ethereal plane, unless completely obscured by cover) the presence of celestials, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead within 60’.

Part of me wishes that this could be at first level, because in many cultures, it is an illness or other event that results in a person being able to see the spirit world that results in them being taken as an apprentice by an existing shaman. However, this is an issue with WOTC not giving all classes their subclass at first level and why I, personally, want to have the shaman as its own class with its own subclasses.

Spirit Guide: You gain a specific “spirit animal guide” that meets the criteria and has the abilities of a familiar, as per the Find Familiar spell, but takes on no physical form (normally). The Spirit Guide remains a “spirit creature” (celestial, fey or fiend in nature) and so can not interact/effect the physical world except that the shaman (and others that can see into the spirit realm) can see and mentally and/or vocally interact.

Now, you have suddenly narrowed by using "animal" when you had defined guides to include more than totem animal spirits. What about the ancestral spirit (or are they considered celestial or fey) which can be the ghost of a deceased family member?

In addition to the normal abilities of a familiar, the Shaman can use a bonus action to entreat the spirit guide to one of the following commands. You may use the following features a total of 1 + Charisma modifier times before requiring a long rest. This feature increases to 2 + Cha. mod. times at 11th and 3 + Cha. mod. times at 16th level.

• Ghostly Manifestation: Your spirit animal takes on a glowing ethereal form, visible to normal sight, able to take the Help or Attack actions against one foe within 15’ of you. They attack in whatever normal mode of the creature, but deal 2d6 psychic damage with their attack.

Again spirit animal is too narrow and rules out things like ancestral spirits that may serve as the Shaman's guardian spirit.

[*]Unseen Guidance: Your connection to your spirit guide allows you advantage to an Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma based skill or ability roll.

This is nice. One of the things about spirit guides in many shamanic beliefs is that, if the shaman does not know an answer, the spirit guide may have the knowledge or will seek out other spirits that might.

[*]Silent Guardian: You evoke your spirit guide (and/or other friendly spirits) to aid in your defense. Add 2 to your AC until the end of your next turn.

I like the list of abilities. I can also see them being new spells. The knowledge thing in many traditions is done in an almost a ritual fashion requiring the entering a trance. The Silent Guardian could be a variation of mage armor.

The reason that I bring this up is that the one thing missing from your subclass is a key ability associated with shamans (in addition to healing, divination, and shamanic trances)- the commanding, turning/rebuking of spirits. The role of the shaman is to serve as a religious leader that acts as an intermediary between the spirit world and the community or communities that the shaman serves (as opposed to clerics that serve deities or warlocks that make pacts with an entity). To this end, the shaman will bribe, cajole, persuade, or intimidate a spirit to do the shaman's bidding (e.g., bless, curse, heal, make someone sick, leave a body being possessed or kill an enemy) Much of this can be simply handled via the spells. However, it also includes driving off (turning/rebukin) spirits as a cleric does undead and, the more powerful the shaman, the more powerful spirits that shaman can affect. Shamans probably shouldn't be able to use this to affect animated undead (e.g. skeletons and zombies) unless binding spirits is used to animate them. The Shaman may or may not be able to affect other corporeal undead (again, it would have to be a spirit rather than other magic responsible for the undead state). Yet, this Shaman ability can be an extremely nasty ability as spirits includes not only ghosts, but fey, non-deity celestials and fiends, wizard familiars and another shaman's spirit guide and, if elementals in 5e don't fall into one of these categories, they too would be affected (I don't have the 5e MM). Therefore, a high level Shaman can potentially turn angels, powerful demons and devils, fey lords, rakshasas, djinn nobles, elemental lords- anything 3e considered an elemental, fey, or outsider short of deity status

 

[Tony Vargas]

By how many people, how deeply, for how long?

Depends on the class name in question.

And by which people?

The ones who count: the fans who actually play the game, and have done for years.

Does Wizards even care about the debates that take place here, for example?

I find it hard to believe that they would, but it's easy to see how folks might think that they do. The edition war was pressed with extreme prejudice, and WotC did roll rev to 5e quite early, for instance. Sure, it was really an unrealistic revenue goal and a series of business snafus, but that doesn't matter to a self-important forumite when the things he's been screaming for kinda-sorta happen (close enough for confirmation bias, anyway).

For a similar instance, the boards fulminated over "DoaM" to the point of cleaving off a discussion ghetto, and it was dropped from the playtest like a hot rock.

Back when the iPod first came out, the Slashdot community immediately panned it. Apple wasn't marketing to the tiny handful of self-acknowledged experts who lurk on Slashdot; they were marketing to the whole world.

I'm sure WotC would love to market to the whole world, but the market for D&D is first and foremost the existing fanbase, and the 'market' for homebrews /certainly/ is.

So if you want to fully explain (and probably periodically re-enforce) what a class isn't before you can even begin explaining what it is, by all means, re-use a class name with a history.

You can call it "Hippo in a Tutu,"

Another classic Fantasy archetype too long under-served by D&D. Along with Alligators in Capes.