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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 7677125" data-attributes="member: 92511">Lumping the shaman in twith alchemist and artificer is...a hard sell. I think his time and effort is better served elsewhere. The two "item-based" subclasses are a no-brainer, but wrapping in a spirit-based...half-caster, I would say (mix the powers between spells and "spirit-talking/controlling/summoning powers...besides the game needs more half-casters to give them a bit of traction).I've been looking to do a write up on a 5e shaman...and really, I'm not convinced a druid subclass is their best bet...what with pesky wildshape at 2nd being automatic, "skin changing" being a specifically shamanic magical thing notwithstanding. By the same token, while it looks like a great fit with a warlock subclass, the flavor is just...off. A warlock is a class dependent and beholden on their pact to a "greater entity" to imbue/instruct them in power...and while, yes, a shaman is dependent on the presence/magic of spirits/spiritual beings to fuel/work their magic, they are not, really, beholden to them. They can deal with other/different spirits. There is no..."entity" to create a pact with...and "pacts" with spirits that shamans would be creating are more to control the spirit, not the patron/warlock kind of arrangement. As the clerics are dependent on their Domain choice and deity from the get go...a shaman is something of a stretch their...though I did consider a "Spirit Domain"...and the Turning ability seems like something the shaman ought to be able to do in a D&D world...So, yeah. Shamans are a bit of a sticky wicket. But lumped in as a subclass with Artificer and Alchemist? Nah. No thanks.</blockquote>

Verification