Is the Shaman a Playable Class?

[mmadsen]

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

The higher skill points are fine. They certainly fit the scholarly archetype. I'm not sure how much they change things, when we realize that a Wizard has Int as his spellcasting attribute rather than Wis, and he'll have more skill points because of that anyway. More importantly, the chief complaint seemed to be that a Wizard without flashy spells, or a Shaman without the Shaman's noncombat abilities simply wouldn't survive. He'd be "orc food". I don't think skill points fix this.

Do the martial arts Bonus Feats? I don't think so. At lower levels, when spellcasters tend to be most vulnerable, the Wizard with a staff and the Shaman with iron fists both attack at +0, doing 1d6 damage. The Shaman's ability to wear light armor isn't bad, but I suspect he'll get hit anyway. At higher levels, once the Shaman's BAB creeps ahead and he gains some more martial arts Feats, he's still not a good melee fighter, and he really shouldn't be going for trips and grapples. Those Feats are largely wasted.

How about the Save bonus at high level? Um, great.

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.

I understand, but I'm not that impressed with the Shaman's non-spellcasting abilities. I am interested in hearing ways to keep low-level spellcasters alive, especially without armor and Mage Armor (although giving Shaman-Wizards Mage Armor wouldn't destroy the game).

 

[Michael Tree]

Let's follow this through then. If we start with the Shaman but give it Wizard BAB, HD, Saves, and Skills, we've got something that fits the archetype we want, but it "gets the shaft". What could we add in place of the third-rate monk abilities and second-rate undead turning?

Why does a wielder of subtle magic have to be a skillless physical wimp? The archetype of the wizard who is a physical gimp is a D&D archetype, but not neccessarily a fantasy archetype.

Since the shaman is a viable class as is, why is it neccessary to weaken it? If the martial arts doesn't fir your concept, change the bonus feats to another type of bonus feats, but keep the medium Base Attack, d6 hit dice, and decent skill points.

If you really want a subtle spellcaster who is a wimp, you should look at the Witch in the DMG, or the Shugenja in Oriental Adventures, with the change that Fire is automatically the shugenja's banned element.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Do the martial arts Bonus Feats? I don't think so.

Oh, but they do! The shaman, with them, may not be as effective a fighter as the Fighter, but he's kinda on par with the cleric (maybe a bit less). These are by no means weak abilities. 1d6 damage is potent, but, at higher levels, the wizard still just does 1d6. To compensate, they get flashy make-'em-go-boom spells. At higher levels, the shaman does more. So they get less boom-power. Those feats and attack progression are QUITE important to the survivability of the character...and even at first level, they ain't to shabby...can't be disarmed of your fists, or get them taken in a raid, or have them burnt by flames, or anything. They're a more reliable weapon, and they're cheap as all get-out.

They may not be "good," per se, but they add a lot of survivability. A shaman with them can hold their own in a fight, if they have to (it's still probably not in their best interest, but they can do it if they need to). A shaman without them sits there, takes it, and tries to run away before they run out of hp.

Of course, at first level, the difference isn't that great, but the ultimate damage-dealing wizard spell at first level is Magic Missile...Shamans can do more than that with Inflict Light Wounds, and can do it again without having to run like a scared little forest elf. Wizards, if they use their weapon, are just asking to be masticated.

 

[hong]

The higher skill points are fine. They certainly fit the scholarly archetype. I'm not sure how much they change things, when we realize that a Wizard has Int as his spellcasting attribute rather than Wis, and he'll have more skill points because of that anyway.

Dump the wizard. Have I said this before? You've said yourself that there's no reason to retain the arcane/divine spellcaster distinction. The Int attribute and arcane spell failure chance are part of that.

Dump the wizard.

More importantly, the chief complaint seemed to be that a Wizard without flashy spells, or a Shaman without the Shaman's noncombat abilities simply wouldn't survive. He'd be "orc food". I don't think skill points fix this.

A shaman is essentially a cleric with kung fu instead of plate mail. Nearly all the observations regarding clerics hold for shamans -- in particular, if you play them in a mere facilitator role (aka the "party medic"), they can be just as boring. I am sure that some players don't mind doing this. I'll bet you that a _lot more_ do. If your group is one where no-one wants to play a cleric, the same will probably hold if you substitute the shaman.

Now, a multiclassed shaman/fighter type _can_ be a lot of fun to play, just as a cleric/fighter can be. This is the character I played most recently. The buff-up spells work a charm if you cast them on yourself, and they can make you quite competitive with the party's fighters when it comes to combat. But that doesn't seem to be what you want in your game, does it?

I understand, but I'm not that impressed with the Shaman's non-spellcasting abilities. I am interested in hearing ways to keep low-level spellcasters alive, especially without armor and Mage Armor (although giving Shaman-Wizards Mage Armor wouldn't destroy the game).

Alive to do what?

 

[mmadsen]

Dump the wizard. Have I said this before? You've said yourself that there's no reason to retain the arcane/divine spellcaster distinction. The Int attribute and arcane spell failure chance are part of that.

If the goal is to have a bookish wizard who casts subtle spells, then the Wizard class's BAB, Hit Dice, Saves, Skill list and Int-based casting make perfect sense. The arcane spell failure can go -- I have no problem with that -- but a scholarly wizard certainly shouldn't start with Armor Proficiency.

The Wizard's Spell list then becomes the problem, and replacing it with the Shaman's list is a good start. I'd probably add back in most of the Enchantments and Divinations, but that's another topic.

A shaman is essentially a cleric with kung fu instead of plate mail.

And that's not at all what I'm looking for.

Nearly all the observations regarding clerics hold for shamans -- in particular, if you play them in a mere facilitator role (aka the "party medic"), they can be just as boring. I am sure that some players don't mind doing this. I'll bet you that a _lot more_ do. If your group is one where no-one wants to play a cleric, the same will probably hold if you substitute the shaman.

The core Cleric isn't merely a facilitator though; he's a guy stuck casting the exact same Cure X Wounds spells over and over. The Cure spells are as bland as the damaging Evocations with even less variety. Imagine a Wizard with nothing but Magic Missile. There's no clever way to use Cure X Wounds.

 

[hong]

And that's not at all what I'm looking for.

I think you don't have a clue what it is you're looking for, to be honest, except that you don't want mages stealing people's thunder.

The core Cleric isn't merely a facilitator though; he's a guy stuck casting the exact same Cure X Wounds spells over and over. The Cure spells are as bland as the damaging Evocations with even less variety. Imagine a Wizard with nothing but Magic Missile. There's no clever way to use Cure X Wounds.

What is it about bull's strength, endurance, bless, aid, endure elements, protection from evil, magic circle against evil, prayer, augury, sanctuary, divination, commune, remove curse and break enchantment that don't count as "facilitating"??

The shaman gets nearly the same spells as the cleric. Anything one class can do, the other one can as well. The cleric can be just as much a facilitator as a shaman, and he can be just as much a party medic as the shaman. He can also be boring to play (and so can the shaman) if all he is, is a facilitator or party medic.

 

[mmadsen]

What is it about bull's strength, endurance, bless, aid, endure elements, protection from evil, magic circle against evil, prayer, augury, sanctuary, divination, commune, remove curse and break enchantment that don't count as "facilitating"??

Are you even reading my posts, or are you simply looking for key words to argue against?

I never said the Cleric doesn't "facilitate"; I said his situation is worse than that. He's not merely a facilitator; he's a guy stuck casting the same boring, flavorless Cure spells throughout the game. There's no clever way to cast Cure Light Wounds.

This, of course, comes from D&D's reliance on ablative Hit Points rather than increasing Defenses, but we've discussed this before. Suffice to say, D&D adventurers need (or can benefit from) healing after almost every encounter.

Since the Cleric uses many of his spell slots very mechanically, healing after every encounter, he ends up playing a very boring role. His non-healing spells, that is, his other "facilitating" spells, aren't necessarily boring at all.

 

[kenjib]

To be honest I don't see how any of this post is relevant to what I've said.

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.
etc. etc.

I never said anywhere that killing monsters (assuming that by "monsters" you include beings such as Morgan Le Fay and Mordred) is not an important part of the adventure. In fact, I said quite clearly that the non-wizard PCs gain glory by doing things precisely like this. In myth, killing the monster is _a_ focal point of the story, you are right, but it is not the primary one. The primary focal point of the story is the journey. Killing the monster is a subset of the entire journey. The facilitator has skills and abilities to help with the journey.

Fine. YOU play the facilitator then.

Being a plot element is a DM's prerogative.

I said quite explicitly multiple times that this does not work with heavy handed DM's. It is more of a collaborative process. It's not even anything new. You could do this with the current rules using the bard class just fine solely with knowledge skills, divinations, and bardic lore. In fact, that is precisely why those skills exist. They are there for the DM to feed information to the character that fuels the plot. This does not diminish the roles of other characters, who still each have a chance to shine in different areas, including combat.

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.

I never stated anywhere that a character would do this, nor did I even imply it. You are either either misrepresenting me or entirely fail to understand what I was getting at.

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.

I never said that this character wields any godlike power or is at all unbalanced relative to other party members. Again you are either misrepresenting me or entirely fail to understand what I was getting at.

This topic is a derailment of mmadsen's thread and I won't discuss it further, but I just wanted to point out that you seem to be constructing some alternate argument that is not mine, and then you are proceding to argue against it as if it were mine. If you really want to discuss it further you can start a new thread, and I'll continue to debate the issue with you there but I don't see how such a discussion would be fruitful. I definitely won't continue the discussion here though, as it has gone off topic.

Now, regarding whether or not you can make the shaman spell list compatible with the wizard class, my answer would be of course! Getting things like this to work well is a matter of tweaking the details correctly so that things work out the way you want and the results are fun. It's not a question of "can it be done?" so much as it's a question of "how do we do it?"

At the extreme example take a wizard, give him the shaman spell list, give him the shaman BaB, give him the shaman light armor, etc. until we just have a shaman. Do you see what I'm getting at? It's a continuum and the trick is just finding the right place to break off and then the right supplemental abilities to add to make the class balanced and fun to play. This is the hard part of course, but simply arguing that it can't be done is not productive at all in my opinion. It's all in the details. Starting with the base wizard with shaman spell lists I'll toss out some suggestions that may or may not be useful. I'm not recommending that all of these be applied at once, but rather suggesting several simple ideas (most already suggested) that can be picked among. In addition, some of these might not fit your vision of this caster:

1. Give him bardic lore.
2. Remove arcane spell failure.
3. Give him good fortitude as well as will saves as a representation of an otherworldy/mystical resistance to harm similar to the monk's.
4. Give him more a faster bonus metamagic feat progression.
5. Tweak the spell list a little to add a tiny bit more oomph and make him more exciting to play. Just add a few select spells to fill some gaps here and there.
6. Increase hit points per level to d6.
7. Increase skill points.
8. Create entirely new abilities and/or spells, like the ability to call upon the power and wisdom of his ancestor's spirits, or the ability to steal luck from other people, or a special affinity for invoking natural disasters and calamities, or the ability to call upon animal spirits for special abilities.

With a wide range of options, it doesn't seem reasonable to me to simply state that such a thing will inevitably turn out bad. It's a matter of pushing the right buttons until it works.

 

[PenguinKing]

If the goal is to have a bookish wizard who casts subtle spells, then the Wizard class's BAB, Hit Dice, Saves, Skill list and Int-based casting make perfect sense. The arcane spell failure can go -- I have no problem with that -- but a scholarly wizard certainly shouldn't start with Armor Proficiency.

The Wizard's Spell list then becomes the problem, and replacing it with the Shaman's list is a good start. I'd probably add back in most of the Enchantments and Divinations, but that's another topic.

I'm going to have to agree with hong on this one - the problem here is that you haven't a clue how you want to actually go about accomplishing what you want. You're just tossing out a concept you know - heck, that you've admitted - is at face value underpowered, and you're waiting for someone else to tell you how you can fix it up.

Apparently, it's not working.

- Sir Bob.

P.S. Nih!

 

[hong]

Are you even reading my posts, or are you simply looking for key words to argue against?

Well, there's not much else to argue against.

I never said the Cleric doesn't "facilitate"; I said his situation is worse than that. He's not merely a facilitator; he's a guy stuck casting the same boring, flavorless Cure spells throughout the game. There's no clever way to cast Cure Light Wounds.

So tell your players not to lean on the cleric. The cleric can be a machine of death if he casts all his buffing spells on himself, and in that case, he's certainly not boring. Again, though, that isn't quite what you're looking for, is it?

And to bring this back on-topic (since we're supposed to be talking about shamans, not clerics), _everything_ said so far counts as much for the shaman as it does for the cleric. If your group hates clerics, they'll hate shamans. If they don't mind one, they won't mind the other.

Since the Cleric uses many of his spell slots very mechanically, healing after every encounter, he ends up playing a very boring role. His non-healing spells, that is, his other "facilitating" spells, aren't necessarily boring at all.

Have you actually _played_ a facilitator in an extended campaign, or is this just wishful thinking?