New D&D Monthly Survey: Mystics & Psionics

The new D&D monthly survey is up - it asks about last month's Unearthed Arcana psionics rules. Additionally, WotC reports on the results of the last survey about settings, classes, and races. It turns out that the top tier settings in terms of popularity are Eberron, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Planescape, and the Forgotten Realms, followed by Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Spelljammer. Additionally, popular character types were led by the artificer, shaman, and alchemist; while the most popular races were thri-kreen, goblin, and aasimar.

Find the new survey here. "This month, our survey looks at the mystic character class and our first draft of psionics rules for fifth edition. Your input is an invaluable tool that helps shape how we develop new material for D&D. If you love the rules, hate them, or have a specific issue you want to address, let us know."

 

[TwoSix]

Taking two "science-y" -implying civilization, advancement of knowledge, technologies- classes and lumping them in with another subclass that is, by definition...or at least immediate word-association, conjuring images, and game legacy [from 1e on with the monstrous humanoid shamans/witchdoctors of the DMG] of "primitive" communities/peoples...a more [to borrow the 4e nomenclature, but note the small "p"] primal mode of magic-working/spell-casting...

I absolutely agree with you that if artificer and alchemist are, say, one degree of separation, that a shaman is more like 5. I would have no problem seeing alchemist as a subclass of a broader artificer class.

I also agree with you that a class does need some sort of overarching concept to support its development. I just see a class focused on magical imbuement, where the subclass concepts share a commonality of technique and practice, as being strong enough to support a diverse core of subclasses. A shaman uses the technique to focus on the creation of fetishes to help his tribe. A runecaster creates powerful warding magic to protect the dwarven hold from advancing orcs. An alchemist brews love charms and healing draughts in a seedy lab behind the tavern in the slums. An artificer produces an elementally powered device in his laboratory in the gnomish city. What unites them is the technique to use magic to create a persistent benefit to people beyond themselves .

 

[Yaarel]

Starting caveat: I have not read or played an existing Shaman class from any form of D&D. I have, however, studied quite a bit about the cultural/spiritual practices of shamanism (or more accurately, shamanistic practices, unless you're in Siberia.)

In D&D terms, shaman aren't really divine casters. The closest existing thing (in concept rather than mechanics) would probably be a necromancer, except that a shaman would work with natural spirits rather than the spirits of the dead. Each spell on the spell list would represent different spirit allied with the shaman, acting at his behest. Spells would be (fluff-wise) gained by making deals with new spirits (or overcoming them in a challenge), so they would be fewer than many classes get.

Based on that, and on my readings, the closest thing to a shaman in 5E today would be a Warlock. Every other type of caster gets their power from either a divine, internal, or external 'raw power' source, while a warlock gets his power by making a deal with an intelligent external source - much like a shaman. Just create a warlock archetype with a Patron of 'Spirits.' Fill the patron's list with healing, buffing, and protection spells, and you're ready to go.

The closest thing D&D has to reallife Shaman, is psionics. The mind of the Shaman is in tune with the psychic presences of cosmic features, including mountains and animals. Humans themselves are one kind of psychic presence among many.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For example, the whole "dream-plane" psionics thing is an explicitly racial concept in Eberron, but this didn't have any bearing on the type of psionics that, say, a dwarf might have used against the horrors of Xoriat.

The idea would be that all of these could exist side-by-side in most worlds. That dwarf could be an Outsider. In Dark Sun, we'd have dreamers and outsiders as well (the mutation is too mutant!). Eberron would have the Evolved as well (given the 1940's vibe, they'd make good Hollywood Nazis ). The subclasses just promote those stories into archetypes.

I guess I don't see the need to reinvent the proverbial wheel with psionics. Psionics would be well-served by a single class, the psion, with six different subclasses based on the six psionic disciplines: egoist, kineticist, nomad, seer, shaper, and telepath. (If six subclasses seems unreasonable, why? Clerics have seven and wizards have eight.) Further, make a new martial archetype (a.k.a.: subclass) for fighters called "psychic warrior", with a limited selection of psionic abilities from a couple of the psionic disciplines. Ditto for the soulknife, except make it a subclass of either monk or rogue. Finally, create a bunch of psionic powers--what were called "disciplines" in the playtest--and divvy them into the six disciplines, then put them on a list. Why re-conceptualize psionics in the same edition that was deliberately trying to roll back the re-conceptualizations of other classes that 4E brought?

Well, for me, those subclasses and powers lack any narrative reason to exist, let alone exist independently from each other. They don't speak to what any of these creatures are in the world, how they organize, what their stories are. They're just grab-bags of powers.

The UA material made a stab at narrative by saying everything was Far Realms-y, but I think it'd be better to let psionics be diverse.

Reading the UA Psionics playtest, I'm reminded of one of the wizard previews that was released in the months prior to 4E: instead of having the traditional schools of magic, the designers had thought fans would like wizards to have specializations like, "Golden Wyvern initiate" and "Serpent Eye cabalist" and "Stormwalker theurge". As soon as WotC gauged the fan reaction, they changed all that in a hurry. There's nothing wrong with those concepts, but they sure as hell didn't represent what the previous incarnations of the D&D brand had said wizards were supposed to be. "Order of the Awakened" and "Order of the Immortal" feel like exactly that same mess all over again.

There's a tension. Some players just want some naked mechanics that they can hang any fluff they want on. 4e eventually went with this approach, more or less.

But 5e presents a strong narrative for each of the classes, and gives us mechanics to support it. The psion shouldn't be an exception to that.

 

[77IM]

The monster manual lists these shamans:

1) Stone giant shamans. They are the best at stone-carving. Very little detail given.
2) Lizardfolk shaman. Described basically as a priest of Semuanya, but casting druid spells, and with a minor shapechanging ability.
3) Quaggoth shaman, or thonot. Has psionic powers, and seems more secular in role than clerical.
4) Tribal Shaman, another name for the NPC Druid stat block.


I'd say "shaman" should not be a class at all. It should be a title, like "lord" or "high priest" or "general" or "chieftain."

 

[phantomK9]

There is some really great discussion of the Shaman class. I agree with a lot of people that it should be its own class. While at a cursory glance it seems that a Warlock subclass might work, the tone of the Warlock is one of subservience, where as I feel the Shaman has a tone more of bonding or working with spirits in order to accomplish spell casting, special abilities.

If I were to design a 5e Shaman I would take bits from Barbarian, Cleric and Druid. Definitely should be a full caster with limited weapon and armor proficiency. Spell list should combine bits from both Cleric and Druid focusing on healing, buffing, de-buffing (hexing) and summoning (both creatures and spirits). As they level they should get permanent bonuses in the same way that a Barbarian chooses a spirit totem.

The list of special abilities would of course be much more diverse than just three choices, similar to a Warlock's list of special bonuses.
Examples include:
- physical boosts (armor, damage reduction, advantage on Strength, etc. etc)
- vision/perception boosts
- boosts to spell damage/duration, etc.
- boosts to numbers of creatures/spirits summoned when summoning
- etc. (plenty of options here)

Sub-classes:
- A sub-class that focuses on more spell casting. Gaining more spells or spell slots, expanding the spell list.
- A sub-class that focuses on cooperating with more or more powerful spirits. Basically gaining more from the list of special abilities.
- A sub-class that focuses on binding spirits into items called "Talismans" allowing for a wide variety of single use magic items.

Bottom line. Shaman should be its own thing.

 

[steeldragons]

In many cultures, the role of shaman was a hereditary one...the association with (or dare I say "origin" of?) the ancestral or nature-benefactor spirit beings assumed to be passed down through a family line...the line's connection to the spirit at some mythical past being the source of their abilities.

Is/would it be too much of a stretch to create a Shaman as a Sorcerous Origin? Sorcerer's are built around a) an ancestor or b) association with/imbued by magical energies of some sort...We have a Dragon ancestor. We have a divine ancestor, Favored Soul. We have the Chaos Sorcerer. And the Storm Sorcerer (which could be either from an [air elemental] ancestor or getting caught in a "magically forceful/imbuing" storm).

Is the Shaman, as "Spirit World Origin" [be that ancestor or association] Sorcerer, too far a leap? Seems a shorter jump, to me, than Artificer to Shaman....or stretching the shaman so thin to create subclasses to justify a full class.

 

[Yaarel]

Wow, I love how the most popular settings lack gods.

Our most popular settings from prior editions landed at the top of the rankings, with Eberron, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Planescape, and the Forgotten Realms all proving equally popular.

In Dark Sun, the gods are dead. Or perhaps there never were any objectively real gods in the first place. The Dark Sun tradition features a godless Cleric, who reveres the elements of nature. These mystical elements comprise the universe, and its interconnectivity, forming the experiences of reality. Possibly, this can be a psionic Cleric class that is telekinetically (and telepathically) in tune with the mystical elements.

In Eberron, there are many spiritual traditions, from animism to monism, plus abstract monotheism, and concrete polytheism. But all of these traditions are cultural expressions of worldviews. The setting is agnostic with none of the spiritual traditions evidencing gods that objectively exist.

Ravenloft is a world onto itself, where gods if they objectively exist at all are irrelevant. There are various ways to deal with undead, including philosophical Paladins who rely on the sacred power of alignment oaths. Nonpolytheistic Clerics are likewise possible.

Of course, Planescape is the theme park for D&D gods, and is the proper setting to explore polytheistic themes.

Meanwhile the rest of the settings can enjoy the absence of these gods.

 

[Barantor]

Even if they never release a book for Greyhawk, it would be nice for them to acknowledge it in the same manner that the did Eberron in the Unearthed Arcana articles.

A few "official" conversions of some key elements to 5E and maybe just a paragraph or two of fluff with a link to the old books on dnd classics would go a long way for us old Grognards who still enjoy Greyhawk a lot more than FR.

I don't have any misconceptions that Greyhawk isn't their choice for "vanilla d&d setting" since they have thrown so much money at FR, but a little bit goes a long way when it comes to new additions and Greyhawk.


As for shaman, I always enjoyed them being along the same lines as druids, a spiritual tribal leader somewhere between a pure druid and a cleric. I think making shaman a subclass of druid rather than it's own class would be in order and buff up the options for druid.

I have always wanted more of a witchdoctor as well and that could be a subclass of warlock very easily for a tribal caster.

 

[Agamon]

Even if they never release a book for Greyhawk, it would be nice for them to acknowledge it in the same manner that the did Eberron in the Unearthed Arcana articles.

A few "official" conversions of some key elements to 5E and maybe just a paragraph or two of fluff with a link to the old books on dnd classics would go a long way for us old Grognards who still enjoy Greyhawk a lot more than FR.

The Eberron UA wasn't an acknowledgement, Eberron has things like Dragonmarks and warforged. I'm not sure what Greyhawk requires conversion for?

 

[Yaarel]

Greyhawk is important to the history of D&D. This setting will always have value.

Greyhawk isnt ‘vanilla’, so much as it is the setting that invented what many people think of when they think of D&D itself.

Even the Planescape setting is simply a spin-off of Greyhawk, that explores in more detail the ‘Cosmic Wheel’ that the Greyhawk setting featured.

Forgotten Realms is a more refined version of the raw and randomly generated Greyhawk setting.

The project of Greyhawk was a thought experiment to figure out how every suggestion in any TSR publication could be simultaneously ‘true’.

Forgotten Realms took the essential ideas of this resulting World of Greyhawk - had a storyteller rework it, and integrate it with cohesive narratives, for a more comprehensive and consistent world.