Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7703607" data-attributes="member: 12731">Just FYI: the Shaman I have play experience with is the 4E one (in the PHB2 I believe).To express that class in existing 5E class terms, I'd describe it as a Warlock subclass (Warlock because of the "caster with some melee capacity" chassi) with a spectral animal companion in place of most of the regular warlockian features. This SAC would crucially take up a spot on the battlefield (like a real animal companion) but mostly be a focus for buffs and debuffs. Foes would have to choose between attacking the SAC (to get rid of the buffs and debuffs) and to attack the real party members. Since the SAC isn't real, the Shaman can bring it back to the next fight (or even during the same fight, can't remember the specifics).The cool thing is the Shaman's battle cry "to the bear", meaning allies should stand next to the bear for its bonuses. Of course, 4E depended heavily on intricate battlemat crunch (move one square this way, push a monster three squares that way) that can't (and shouldn't) be translated into 5E.But to completely do away with a battlefield presence (as does these Barb subclasses) would be a shame IMO. That completely throws out the baby with the bathwater, since all that remains once you see through the fluff is a few very standard ways of getting advantage and imposing disadvantage. Mechanically, that simply is a big "meh". It's simple, but it's too simple. (To make up a meaninful successor to how the Shaman played, at least).Binders and Artificers I don't know anything about.</blockquote>

Verification