Is the Shaman a Playable Class?

[ColonelHardisson]

More to the point, there's precious few opportunities to win glory if all you are is a facilitator. It's hard enough as it is to get players to play the party cleric, and that class can at least kick some booty in combat.

This is a very good point. While it is interesting to experiment with the game system and to try to model one's perception of legendary spellcasters in the game, the fact is all that theoretical work goes out the window when the players sit down for a session. The most important thing then is what is fun to play. In this regard, I think the type of spellcaster being discussed is technically playable, but probably not terribly fun to play, for the reason hong gave.

 

[Desdichado]

ColonelHardisson:
Anyway, the survivability of such a spellcaster in a campaign really depends on the DM. If the DM is running a typical D&D campaign, and makes no provision for such a character, then it'll be tough going. Even if the rest of the party takes up the slack for the spellcaster in pitched battles, and values the character for its subtler abilities, I still think such a spellcaster would end up more of a liability than an asset, in the long run.

Yes, the assumption of a low-magic world, combat "less effective" mage and your typical D&D campaign is not a good combination. However, I (and I think the originators of the thread) aren't looking at the typical D&D campaign, so it may not be an issue. It wouldn't be in mine, anyway.

However, for what it's worth, I also think taking the Shaman, eliminating his medium BAB and two good saves and decent HPs, and one or two combat effective special abilities makes the guy pretty darn lame. If you're going to weaken the magic and give nothing else in return, you better rejig the rest of the classes as well. That's another reason my solution to producing a lower magic setting is to use Star Wars "magic" with renaming (as well as a number of other Star Wars and Wheel of Time classes to replace D&D classes that have too many supernatural special abilities for my taste.) The balance is there, and if magic is weaker, the character has some other things to factor in to the mix and make him a useful, contributory and fun character to play.

 

[kenjib]

More to the point, there's precious few opportunities to win glory if all you are is a facilitator. It's hard enough as it is to get players to play the party cleric, and that class can at least kick some booty in combat.

Hong, you have previously stated that a killing monsters-getting treasure style of play is your preference. That is fine and in that context I agree that the facilitator role can not win glory, but with a story oriented style the facilitator takes on a tremendous role and actually gets more glory than anyone else.

Consider Merlin, Gandalf, and Prospero. These, to me, are the biggest facilitator archetypes. The warriors may stand in front, defeated enemies, but ultimately it is the wizard that guides and creates the entire journey. The wizard is the plot. He holds a special relationship to the author that the other characters don't have.

Prospero is the most easy to explain example, but these principles apply equally well to Merlin and Gandalf. Consider the role that Prospero plays in The Tempest. Shakespeare provides the plot and crisis which must be resolved. It is Prospero who guides the other players and createst the story. It is the other characters who act on this guidance and bring the story to close. Ultimately, Prospero is the most important person in the entire play. To the people within the fictitious setting, the other characters are the glorious ones. However, to the reader of the story, there is no doubt as to who the real force of the story is. Frodo and Aragorn has essential parts but it was really Gandalf who made everything possible. He is the glue that holds the entire story together.

Now consider this applied to D&D:

DM: Provides a setting and situations within which characters can act. Plays the part of the NPCs and adjudicates rules.
The Wizard: Guides the party through his knowledge and abilities to shape destiny through magic. The Wizard works behind the scenes and does not get credited for his deeds publicly, as people can not understand what he does, but he knows that he was behind it all. This is enough for him because he is not interested in worldy matters. This is the role of leadership which comes naturally as a result of knowledge given the wizard via divinations and lore and the ability to bend the rules with magic. The Wizard absorbs some of the roles that more control-oriented DMs take on but which light-handed DMs leave to the players.
Other PCs: Do the grunt work and take on the public face of the wizard. These guys take the glory in public and get to shine by exhibiting the extent of their various talents throughout the adventure.

This model requires several things:

1. Some emphasis on story over combat. Even if the wizard has some combat ability, ala Gandalf, his primary role is outside of combat. If this element is downplayed in a campaign the wizard loses his usefulness.
2. The DM absolutely can not railroad the party and push them in pre-determined directions. This interferes directly with the wizard's job.
3. Good players who can make this situation work. Yes it is situational and group dependent. This style is not for everyone, however it is not universally boring or lacking in the ability to provide glory for all involved. It has no place in the core D&D rules but could make an interesting variant for those who like and can handle this sort of thing.
4. This all does imply that having more than one wizard character in a group is a problem. I would agree with that. In fiction facilitators don't work together

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Yes, the assumption of a low-magic world, combat "less effective" mage and your typical D&D campaign is not a good combination. However, I (and I think the originators of the thread) aren't looking at the typical D&D campaign, so it may not be an issue. It wouldn't be in mine, anyway.

Actually, the point I was trying to get at is that in a low-magic campaign, spellcasters will be useless as PCs for the most part. This is in comparison to the non-spellcasting classes (which I should have specifically pointed out). What I'm getting at is that low-magic campaigns will eventually wind up with a lot of fighter and rogue PCs, because - even in a low magic campaign, where any magic is exotic - spellcasters simply won't be able to compete with the others. Ratcheting up their other abilities may help balance it out, but you might as well make the Bard (after a few revisions) the only spellcasting class available, and carefully reconstruct the Bard's spell list. Even then, I'd be doubtful about it being a popular choice for a PC in a low-magic campaign.

Assuming an across-the-board low magic world, you wouldn't have a lot of critters with DR - meaning the fighters would be able to take care of most of them. Rogues might even become even more prominent in such a world, since most traps/locks/devices would be mundane in nature, and therefore much more accessible to them via Disable Device. Plus, their high skill point totals would be really important in such a world.

So what place would a spellcaster have, really? Most of what he was best at in a high magic world would be dominated by fighters and rogues in a low magic world. Maybe roleplaying intensive campaigns in such a world would find such a character useful, but the rogue, bard, expert, and aristocrat would likely dominate here instead, with lots of skill points to spend and most of the roleplaying focused skills available to them as class skills.

Wolfspider presents a way of handling magic in his Middle Earth d20 conversion that might be of interest for some of you to look at. Check it out at the link in my sig.

 

[mmadsen]

Actually, the point I was trying to get at is that in a low-magic campaign, spellcasters will be useless as PCs for the most part.

As long as the spellcaster can do things no one else can do, I see a place for at least one spellcaster in the party, in the same way that you always have at least one Rogue (but not three or four). I certainly see no problem with a typical party being one Rogue, one Shaman/Wizard, and a bunch of Fighters (each customized, of course).

Assuming an across-the-board low magic world, you wouldn't have a lot of critters with DR - meaning the fighters would be able to take care of most of them.

I might be alone in this, but shouldn't Fighters be the ones fighting the best? When they do encounter a magical foe though, they'll need magical help. OK, the Shaman/Wizard doesn't get to be the "quarterback", but he's still an important part of the team. The +5 bonus from Weapon Bless should put him in the spotlight even if it's the knight's blade that cuts down the demon.

Rogues might even become even more prominent in such a world, since most traps/locks/devices would be mundane in nature, and therefore much more accessible to them via Disable Device. Plus, their high skill point totals would be really important in such a world.

Is that a bad thing?

So what place would a spellcaster have, really?

I have trouble feeling bad for spellcasters who can do things no ordinary mortal can do. At any rate, if the DM lets the Shaman's divinations yield some results, then the Shaman has a very strong role to play. Similarly, if the Shaman is the only one who can recognize magic wards/traps, he plays a role like the Rogue's. And, again, in combat he may not be the "quarterback", but he provides good "blocking" via "buffing" spells.

 

[Desdichado]

ColonelHardisson:
Assuming an across-the-board low magic world, you wouldn't have a lot of critters with DR - meaning the fighters would be able to take care of most of them. Rogues might even become even more prominent in such a world, since most traps/locks/devices would be mundane in nature, and therefore much more accessible to them via Disable Device. Plus, their high skill point totals would be really important in such a world.

Well, my solution, which is different from bramadan, mmadsen, kenjib or anyone else to contributed to the earlier named thread, is that I will use the Force Adept and a slightly modified Jedi Consular (with powers and classes renamed, obviously) as my "magic users." These certainly aren't slouches, and they do have a very useful place in a campaign, despite their low power level relative to wizards of D&D. The other classes are also toned down relative to magical abilities (a lot of borrowing from Star Wars and Wheel of Time) and magic items are generally unavailable, with the odd exception. As far as combatants, I prefer classed humanoids as antagonists at least 90% of the time anyway.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Is that a bad thing?

Umm, no, but that wasn't my point. I was pointing out that a spellcaster in such a campaign would not be a desirable PC choice, because what he or she could do would be done better by someone else. The only place they might have any real advantage is in roleplaying situations, and, as I pointed out, much of what they could do would be obviated by characters with enough ranks in certain skills.

The main gist of what I'm saying is: if a class is so underpowered that it can't compete with the other classes, it won't be a popular choice with players, regardless of how well it captures the feel of legends or fairytales. If you're proposing a class purely out of academic interest, that's fine. For actual gameplay, that may not be so fine.

Joshua Dyal's idea about Force Adepts is one I've considered for a while. Good idea.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I have trouble feeling bad for spellcasters who can do things no ordinary mortal can do. At any rate, if the DM lets the Shaman's divinations yield some results, then the Shaman has a very strong role to play. Similarly, if the Shaman is the only one who can recognize magic wards/traps, he plays a role like the Rogue's. And, again, in combat he may not be the "quarterback", but he provides good "blocking" via "buffing" spells.

But, given that the world is low-magic, wouldn't such a spellcaster's opportunity to be useful be infrequent, at best? Most of the time he would be sitting around. Now, characters like you see in spy shows and movies, who monitor satellite feeds and tell the agents on the ground what to expect, are great devices in such stories. But they don't make for very enjoyable characters to play.

 

[Ace]

Re: 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.

SNIP the middle

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

Beautifully said Shark! Eloquent and well though out. My compliments

 

[I'm A Banana]

What I think has basically been surmised by the CH and Josh already...

If you take away the most effective spells for a spellcaster, and don't give them anything to compensate, in the eyes of a player, they will GET THE SHAFT.

Even if the world itself is low-magic, so what the character can do is extra-special, if it's so much smoke and mirrors, it's not actually useful for plundering dragon hordes and dealing with demons and such.

People will still take it, just because there will still be the appeal of being able to use magic (it's no small appeal, after all). But they'll have to be shepherded by the classes that are better at...well...nearly anything...than the wizard.

Wizards, without their spells, suck. Especially in comparison to the rest of the classes, but even in comparison to the monsters of the world. They're sitting ducks.

Why would I bother taking a level of Wizard at all, even buffed up with some extra HP from Expert, if he won't be able to do anything without someone else helping him out? Why not spend those levels a bit more effectively on something...useful.

But, hey, whatever you have fun with. I'm just saying that I, as a player, would have big qualms about taking a level in anything that gave me abilities that were only useful for making others better, and the only reason I survived was by the good graces of the DM and those that I beef up.

That's why, I think, clerics and other divine spellcasters have armor (the big mechanical difference between arcane and divine magic) and are no slouches when dishing out the damage (with decent BAB's, decent HP's, and a slight edge in the weapons department). Because, otherwise, they're just spellcasters that help out everyone else and don't get to do anything without their party members.

Everyone likes to be able to function independantly of the party, and to be able to contribute when they are in a party. This wizard you're describing seems like a walking, talking "eat me" sign to orcs.