Is the Shaman a Playable Class?

[mmadsen]

mmadsen, when you keep pointing to the OA Shaman as an example of "a viable wizard-type class with no flash-bang spells", you're consistently missing the fact that there are bigger differences between the core-rules Wizard and the OA Shaman than their spell lists.

To clarify, while discussing subtle magic as an alternative to flash-bang magic, I suggested giving wizards a spell list full of subtle spells, particularly at the lower levels, and flash-bang spells only at higher levels. Someone else suggested the OA Shaman as a class with just such a subtle spell list. Many people met my suggestion of a subtle spell list with disdain. What's the point of being a wizard if you don't toss fireballs around? Naturally then, I had to ask, is the Shaman that awful?

Of course there are non-spellcasting differences, but I must admit that I don't see the great advantage of some third-rate Monk abilities (e.g. Improved Unarmed Strike) for a spellcasting class. You say that, "The Shaman actually has the capacity to get things accomplished in a non-magical fashion," but I don't see what he's going to get done with his fists (+0/1d6) that a Wizard won't do with his staff (+0/1d6). Survivability's always an issue with low-level Wizards, so the d4 vs. d6 hit dice can become an issue, and no armor vs. light armor can also become an issue, but that seems like something we can work around (a wound/vitality system goes a long way at low levels).

If you take the Wizard as the basis for your "spellcaster" class and give it the Shaman's spell list with no other modifications, you haven't created a balanced low-magic spellcaster - you've just created a high-magic spellcaster playing under low-magic rules, which can cripple the class, the setting, or most likely both at once.

It sounds to me more like a Shaman who uses a staff and is too fragile for hand-to-hand combat. I'm interested in any suggestions for fitting abilities that would keep such a character alive and interesting.

 

[mmadsen]

I will make an attempt to help answer the original question without getting into the low magic discussion.

Thanks for staying on topic, Brown Jenkin.

Our Shaman has not complained publicly about his choice and seems to be having fun. What is his role then. He is our cleric equivalent (There are no clerics in Rokugan), without much direct combat (This last part may be more his playing style) His job is to provide healing and buffing, our other spellcaster who is the "howitzer" makes him invisible after the buffing, and then he runs around providing healing to those in need.

I'm glad he's having fun with it, but I must admit that it certainly doesn't sound that thrilling to me.

Does this mean that the shaman can't be used more offenceivly without a spellcasting "howitzer" to back him up I do not know. Is the Shaman a bad class, I don't think so. Should it be played if you want to be the center of attention in combat, probably not.

Sounds like a reasonable assessment.

As for needing a spellcasting power to deal with encounters it is up to the DM and his choices.

Agreed.

 

[PenguinKing]

You're missing a few things - like:

1) The Shaman has no spell failure - he can cast in armor.

2) The Shaman has more class skills and twice as many base skill points.

3) The Shaman has more spell slots, once you count domain spells.

4) The Shaman has spontaneous casting of cures/inflicts.

5) The Shaman uses the cleric/rogue BAB.

6) Shamans have a selection of minor abilities that Wizards don't - like applying their Charisma bonus to saving throws at higher levels.

So, in a sense, you're right - a Wizard with the Shaman's spell list is essentially a Shaman with fewer hit points, a lower BAB, fewer spell slots, less flexible spellcasting, fewer skills and skill points, and fewer special abilities.

- Sir Bob.

P.S. Nih!

 

[mmadsen]

So, only one guy knows a guy who's played a Shaman? Anyone else have any first- or second-hand experience with the class?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

So, ColonelHardisson, you feel the Shaman class is an underpowered, unpopular class, and that it's not the type of spellcaster I seem to prefer?

The type of spellcaster you have described in this thread and others is not like the Shaman. If people aren't getting just what it is you prefer - and it seems there are a few besides me - perhaps you need to explain it more clearly.

The OA Shaman is balanced just about right. But, it doesn't seem to be exactly like the character class you describe, based on what you've written in this thread. If the Shaman is, indeed, exactly like the class you want, then great! You have what you want.

 

[mmadsen]

The type of spellcaster you have described in this thread and others is not like the Shaman. If people aren't getting just what it is you prefer - and it seems there are a few besides me - perhaps you need to explain it more clearly.

I've discussed multiple different "low magic" options on multiple threads, and there's no One True Spellcaster I'm aiming for. I've discussed both "low magic" spellcasters with "subtle" spells and "classic" spellcasters with "fairy tale" spells. I'm sorry if that's made things difficult to follow. For the purpose of this thread, I'd like to discuss the Shaman, as is, and an alternate "subtle" wizard with the Shaman's spell list (probably with a few tweaks).

The basic question is, is the Shaman's spell list too boring to play and enjoy? It has perhaps the most subtle spell list of any of the D&D spellcasters, and that's why it was suggested. Is that subtlety intrinsically boring?

A new question that's come up is, are the Shaman's non-spellcasting abilities so interesting that they make up for a boring spell list? I don't see it, but obviously some people think the Shaman class is much more playable than one that doesn't wear leather armor and needs a staff in place of bare hands.

At any rate, if I were to introduce a Wizard with the weaker Shaman spell list, I'd want to find appropriately subtle special abilities or spells to add to the class to keep it playable and fun (rather than "orc food" that dies quickly).

The OA Shaman is balanced just about right. But, it doesn't seem to be exactly like the character class you describe, based on what you've written in this thread. If the Shaman is, indeed, exactly like the class you want, then great! You have what you want.

You earlier said "yes" to the notion that the Shaman is underpowered and consequently unpopular. Or did I misunderstand, because you're now saying it's "balanced just about right."

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Mmadsen:

After reading your last post, I think a great deal of the confusion stems from the fact that there are two independent questions in play here.

On the one hand, from your last post:

The basic question is, is the Shaman's spell list too boring to play and enjoy?

I haven't heard any opinions of this from others thus far. I'd say no, but alas I haven't played a Shaman.

However, stemming from the original query, several posters have brought up a second question. "Is a wizard with the Shaman's spell list viable?" Here, there are many opinions, most of which seem to be "No."

 

[PenguinKing]

A new question that's come up is, are the Shaman's non-spellcasting abilities so interesting that they make up for a boring spell list? I don't see it, but obviously some people think the Shaman class is much more playable than one that doesn't wear leather armor and needs a staff in place of bare hands.

Again, you keep dismissing the more relevant differences - like higher skill points, more flexible bonus feat selection, etc.

Here, let me explain it as simply as I can:

The Wizard/Sorcerer spell list alone does indeed make for a viable class. It is constructed under the assumption that the character classes using it have very little in the way of abilities other than to cast spells.

The Shaman spell list alone does not, in fact, make for a viable class. It is constructed under the assumption that it will be a component of a broader range of class abilities.

- Sir Bob.

P.S. Nih!

 

[I'm A Banana]

YA-HEY!

It's not the spell-list that makes the Shaman class. It certainly is a factor, but, let's face it, if it couldn't wear armor, a measly +2 AC for a first level spell isn't giong to markedly increase survivability.

If you take away some of the Monk and Cleric abilities, and lower the BAB to something like a wizard's, then you do have to throw a bit into the mix to keep the class in line with the rest of 'em.

It's doable. For instance, maybe instead of being able to wear armor, they'd cast arcane spells, but be able to...oh, I dunno, spend 1 spell level and get a +4 to an ability score for, like, a round or something? The whole "I'm a weaver of Magic, of COURSE I'm more than I seem" idea...Or maybe giving them some extra damage with a similar cost? Maybe something like the rogue's Sneak Attack done from Magiking up a weapon or something?

It's definately doable. And going with a Shaman as a baseline allows you to only tweak what you'd want to tweak...

Okay, let's take a look at the Shaman's class powers, and see what it might be equivalent to:

Slightly-Midling HP: Maybe a keeper. I'd advocate keeping it. You may be able to give them wizard HP and give them something else that ensures their survival...like a bonus Toughness feat for being exposed to arcane energies, or maybe Shield proficiency so they can up their AC a bit.

Average Skill Points: This would probably be a keeper for a more esoteric wizard...more Knowledge skills of obscure lore, more Craft skills of strange artistry, etc.

BAB: I'd keep it. If you weaken it, I'd say give 'em a HD up by 2 categories, maybe LOTS more weapons and armor, maybe surge their saves with some extra Oomph (probably making them all good). Because these changes probably wouldn't fit the goal, I'd keep it. If the magic is lower, anyway, the physical training is going to be better.

One Good Save: Probably a keeper. We may want to beef it up a bit, and adding another save is a good counter-measure to, say, getting rid of the Unarmed Strike and Bonus Feats, or ditching both the spontaneous casting and the Domain Spells (that might even be worth all 2, but probably not). We'd probably add it in Fortitude, I think...Exposure to the Arcane and all that.

Weapons & Armor: Seems pretty OK for an esoteric wizard. One might want to ditch the whole light armor thing...then I'd suggest upping their HD to a d8, or maybe giving them some sort of Monklike Intelligence bonus to their AC or something.

Domain Spells: Maybe a keeper, representing the forces the wizard knows about. If you get rid of it, it weakens 'em only a smidgen. Maybe give 'em another spell per day, or perhaps some automatic spells as they level up (assuming they don't learn all the spells on their list automatically like most divine spellcasters).

Spontaneous Casting: Probably ditching it. I could see a case for keeping it ("I was going to cast this spell of mist, but it's not very helpful to help my friend or smite that evil"), but it would most likely go. Again, best solved with a spell-learning mechanism, like more spells per day, or giving the spell list a few "must-haves" from the Wizard/Sorc list to beef it up a tad.

Unarmed Strike & Bonus Feats: Basically a bonus feat. May be traded for Scribe Scroll...maybe look at some of the feats in the PsiHB for ideas of what could be more-or-less "latent" magical powers that they don't have to cast, but get anyway (maybe their bones turn to mithril or something, giving them +4 AC. But only as long as they've got 1 spell level, or something). Definately want to trade this out for something that helps their battle prowess, though. Maybe extra weapon proficiencies? Armor proficiencies? Something sneak-attacky (in which case all the feats go)....maybe limiting the feats to a different type, like Metamagic and/or Item Creation.

Animal Companion: Probably a no-go. Since animal companions are actually fairly decent, I'd consider giving them a fairly decent something to compensate. Perhaps a bit more attack spell or defense spell capability, maybe some extra feats, maybe some extra weapons or something sneak-attacky. I can see something more powerful than the Monk Wis-To-AC bonus being used here.

Spirit Sight: Eh. It's only a so-so ability, and I could concieve of it being left in for wizards "attuned to the supernatural world."

Turn/Rebuke Undead, Extra Turning: Again, so-so....useful, but only occasionally. Might want to change it to some sort of innate read/detect magic ability...that'd be pretty handy for a spellcaster.

Spirit's Favor: Probably a no-go. The Wis-to-AC ability is about equal (with a change to Intelligence or Charisma most likely), but I could see it, under different flavor...After all, exposing yourself to evil energies is going to toughen you up a bit, and the better able you are to bind the dangerous forces of unseen to your will, the better you can take a hit.

So that's the idea.

Erm, I personally would probably just turn spellcasting classes into PrC's and have them use the Adept, but I wouldn't be apologetic for having pansy PC's, because then I'd make, say, the Fighter have to be a Warrior for a few levels...Paladins and Rangers may require both Adept and Warrior levels. Rogues may need Adept and Expert...so I'd weaken all classes across the board and use a few "intro levels" before you got to the true power of, say, a Fighter.

...oh, and LV1 would probably be Commonner all around.

But that's just my brainstorm idea plan thing.

 

[hong]

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.

In the myth-and-legend-oriented campaign which you appear to have in mind, killing monsters (if not necessarily taking their treasure) _is_ a focal point of the game. A campaign designed to emulate myth and legend treats evil monsters as psychological metaphors. A dragon represents the cruelty of tyrants and unjust kings, and so has to be confronted and destroyed. A horde of orcs represents the rapaciousness and destructive side of humankind, and must similarly be defeated. And so on.

These foes are inherently evil, because they are us -- they represent our own dark side. You do not negotiate or come to terms with orcs, just as you don't try to excuse killing someone because you covet his property. If you want a race of orcs that has human motivations, or are tragic anti-heroes, or have cultures based on historical parallels, you are not playing a mythical game. Such a game, where "evil" races are _cultural_ as opposed to psychological metaphors, is based in modern fantasy/SF as opposed to myth.

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.

Fine. YOU play the facilitator then.

Being a plot element is a DM's prerogative. A character who stays back and minds the castle while the other PCs go off and slay dragons is not, by any stretch of the imagination, playing an active role in the party. Conversely, a character who wields godlike power and uses it to steer the party along is at best a patron, at worst an Elminster-clone.