Is the Shaman a Playable Class?

[hong]

The idea was simply of a world where wizards cast subtle spells, not where they're necessarily tribal witchdoctors. That is, they'd probably remain Wizards in every way except their spell list. They wouldn't fight well, they wouldn't turn undead, they wouldn't be divine (the divine/arcane distinction would probably go away for such a game), they wouldn't cast spontaneous healing spells (although they might cast all spells spontaneously).

Regardless of the in-game explanation of where wizards fit into the grand scheme of things, if there are no _mechanical_ differences between wizards and clerics/shamans, there's no reason to keep them as distinct classes. Since the defining characteristics of these classes are their spells, it comes down to asking what spells a wizard could cast that a cleric couldn't, and vice-versa. A wizard without boom spells does nothing a cleric couldn't do, and is much wimpier as well.

 

[mmadsen]

Regardless of the in-game explanation of where wizards fit into the grand scheme of things, if there are no _mechanical_ differences between wizards and clerics/shamans, there's no reason to keep them as distinct classes.

Well, right. Who says you have to have Wizards and Clerics? The whole point was as an alternative to the current conventions of the game.

I'm not arguing that here though. In this thread, I'm asking, is a spellcaster with no flash-bang spells unplayable? Even the core Cleric has some (especially if you include healing as flashy, but we'll ignore that for now, since the Shaman obvious heals as well).

 

[mmadsen]

It wouldn't bore me to tears, but I'd be affraid to play it. The survivability of such a character is dramatically tiny. 4 hp AND no Mage Armor to protect yourself...eeeek!

How about under a Wound/Vitality system where he'd start with more like 14 hit points?

Main thing about Shamans is that they've got fairly OK non-magical combat powers. If you think about it, that's the main thing about any divine spellcaster -- even Druids can dish it out in combat, and they've probably got the most flash-bang spells of Divine magic.

That's an odd D&Dism, now that you mention it. Divine spellcasters are good in a fight.

So is the wizard gets a bit of a beef in HP, maybe BAB, I could see it. But if they stay as weak as they are, AND get no magic compensation for that, I'd say "sorry, I'm gonna go over here and play the Rogue, or maybe the Fighter. Hooray for not dying!"

How about if you're playing a 4th-level game, and you're allowed to start as Exp3/Sha1 (and we beef up the Expert a bit)?

 

[hong]

Well, right. Who says you have to have Wizards and Clerics?

You are, apparently, given that I've said several times just to dump wizards and you keep trying to "fix" them.

I'm not arguing that here though. In this thread, I'm asking, is a spellcaster with no flash-bang spells unplayable? Even the core Cleric has some (especially if you include healing as flashy, but we'll ignore that for now, since the Shaman obvious heals as well).

I'm not sure what colour the sky is in a world where a cure light wounds spell counts as "flashy".

 

[mmadsen]

You are, apparently, given that I've said several times just to dump wizards and you keep trying to "fix" them.

That's saying you need Wizards and Clerics? I don't follow your logic at all. The idea (in the other thread) was to make a spell list for wizards that would involve only "subtle" spells, the kind you might not even know had been cast. You suggested the Shaman class as having just such a list. It doesn't have the Skills or other mechanics to match a wizard character concept -- certainly the Improved Unarmed Fighting doesn't fit at all -- but the spell list is a decent start.

My question to the group then was, is the Shaman class that boring to play? Why are people whining so much about playing a wizard without Magic Missiles and Fireballs?

I'm not sure what colour the sky is in a world where a cure light wounds spell counts as "flashy".

Flashy, not powerful. If you can heal wounds in seconds, right before your very eyes, that's certainly flashy.

 

[hong]

I'd buy it. Even with a different feat for Unarmed Strike. I don't have OA here, but, since Shamans cast divine magic, they can still wear armor, and I don't think they're too shabby with weapons, either. They get some turning powers, too.

Bare essentials: cleric/rogue BAB, good Will save, light armour prof, simple weapon prof, d6 hp, 4 skill points/level.

Class abilities: bonus martial arts feats at 1st level and thence every 4 levels, animal companion, see ethereal at 2nd level, turn undead at 3rd level (as cleric 2 levels lower), spirits' favour at 5th level (add Cha bonus to saves, like paladin).

...I'd say, sure. Shamans work OK for the less flash-bang kind of magic user, since they're still pretty effective without the magic. They're not Wizard-Wussy.

In the Britannia campaign setting I'm (still) finishing up, druids are the main divine spellcasting class. Despite the name, they use the shaman stats and spell list.

In addition, they get Animal Empathy, Handle Animal, Knowledge (planes) and Knowledge (nature) as class skills. Instead of gaining martial arts feats, they get a player-chosen bonus feat at 1st level, 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter; this can be chosen from any metamagic feat, Endurance, Extra Turning, Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Martial Weapon Proficiency (one weapon), or Weapon Focus.

Druidic domains available are Air, Earth, Fire, Healing, Knowledge, Luck, Protection, Strength, War, Water, Community*, Flame*, Fury*, Guardian*, Hero*, Metal*, Nature*, River*, Stone*, Wood*.
(* denotes an OA shaman domain).

 

[hong]

That's saying you need Wizards and Clerics? I don't follow your logic at all. The idea (in the other thread) was to make a spell list for wizards that would involve only "subtle" spells, the kind you might not even know had been cast. You suggested the Shaman class as having just such a list.

My question to you (as yet unanswered) is: what is the point of having a wizard _class_ in a world where everything they do can be done by a cleric/shaman/brand X divine spellcaster?

What spellcasting classes do you envisage as existing in a campaign you run?

Why question to the group then was, is the Shaman class that boring to play? Why are people whining so much about playing a wizard without Magic Missiles and Fireballs?

A shaman is more than a wizard without magic missile and fireball.

Flashy, not powerful. If you can heal wounds in seconds, right before your very eyes, that's certainly flashy.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's divine power. It's a miracle. It's a sign that this person is favoured by the gods, or by the spirits of her ancestors. You can handwave it however you like; the point is that healing magic is not something contradictory to the ethos of a low-magic world.

 

[SHARK]

Excellent Topic My Friend!

Greetings!

mmadsen, I think your concept, prima facie, is just fine. I actually favor a lower-range magic level for at least most of the campaign or so. In truth though, I like a good variety. In discussing this though, as *cool* as it is, I think there could be some serious problems with the de facto removal of the standard *howitzer model* wizard of D&D with a less ferocious, more subtly spell-equipped character.

Regardless of what name we want to give the class, or what type of magic the character accesses, or even what feats or skills the character enjoys, the problem does come up rather seriously with game balance.

*Hold On!*--you probably know me well enough to know that I'm not some super-high-fantasy reactionary munchkin or such, but what I mean is this:

The roster of monsters throughout the MM and their constituent populations is *intrinsically* geared towards the existance, dare I say, *proliferation* of the *Howitzer Model* wizards.

For a low-powered spell-caster to be effective, and even attractive for any PC, or even NPC, to take as a class the DM would have to orientate the entire monster-population and power level of the campaign.

For example, I used to play Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. In several such campaigns, magic was powerful, but almost always low-key, and subtle. A +2 sword was very powerful, even rare, but didn't necessarily look like some great jewelled thing. And while useful, it was never game-unbalancing. Likewise, Wizard characters in the game were useful for adding subtle effects like attack bonuses and illusions, and light, and small bursts of flame for example, but wizards never became *Howitzer Models* In addition, while helpful, wizards weren't crucial to success. The opposition, which often consisted of humans, beastmen, orcs, brutish animals, trolls, skaven, and such, were almost never encountered in greater numbers than a dozen or two. In any event, the opponents could easily be killed with normal arrows, and other normal weaponry.

Because of the critical system, there wasn't really an "escalation" problem--i.e. Trolls and Orcs remained deadly regardless of how many careers your character had. Thus, there was no need to include an endless roster of ever more powerful and arcane monsters to challenge the party. That doesn't mean that different things were never encountered--just that the very power-level of the party didn't *demand* such.

Thus, with D&D now. Though many *balancing elements* exist, they are intrinsic to balancing towards the *Howitzer Model* Should a low-powered spell-caster work, the DM would be required to depopulate the campaign world significantly. Otherwise, the hordes of Wraiths, Drow, Demons, Beholders, Nightmares, and so on--you know the huge list--of magically powerful creatures would utterly destroy a party.

Now, one could do so--fix the campaign to accomodate such a low-powered spell-caster, but the world would require a lot of work on the dm's part, and the very operating dynamics of D&D would be challenged.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[mmadsen]

My question to you (as yet unanswered) is: what is the point of having a wizard _class_ in a world where everything they do can be done by a cleric/shaman/brand X divine spellcaster?

Your question doesn't make much sense to me. I already said there probably wouldn't be any divine/arcane dichotomy and that most of the Shaman's mechanics (aside from the spell list) wouldn't fit the concept of a wizard.

If you want to play a game where magic works more like it does in folklore (more curses, no Magic Missiles), with wizards studying ancient texts while wearing pointy hats, that's not quite the Shaman and it's not quite the Wizard. It's something like the Wizard as far as BAB, Saves, and Skills, but more like the Shaman as far as Spells. (Even the Shaman spell list isn't a perfect fit though.)

Again though, that's not the point of this thread. Here I'm simply asking if the Shaman is playable/fun. Kamikaze Midget made the point that it is, but it might not be playable without the defensive spells available to a Wizard if we took away its mundane combat abilities. That's good to know.

It's divine power. It's a miracle. It's a sign that this person is favoured by the gods, or by the spirits of her ancestors. You can handwave it however you like; the point is that healing magic is not something contradictory to the ethos of a low-magic world.

A 1st-level spell that closes wounds before your very eyes is most definitely flashy and hardly "low magic". But, again, feel free to discuss that on the "low magic" thread.

 

[hong]

A 1st-level spell that closes wounds before your very eyes is most definitely flashy and hardly "low magic".

But one that turns your enemies into toads isn't?