• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D (2024) (+) New Edition Changes for Inclusivity (discuss possibilities)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
So shamans are more like warlocks (as defined by 5e)?

There is an overlap. If the view of the Shaman is that they work with a single spirit (like in PF?) then they would need some story work about why they are different. There might be differences in the relationship (works for vs. bound to), motivation (wants to further the spirits goals vs. works for the spirit because they want power), and spell types (arcane vs. divine). Is an Archfey, Demon Prince, or Great Old One basically a deity? If they are, and that's the spirit in question, is the relationship between a warlock and a shaman of this type any different than the difference between a warlock and a shaman of this type.

If the view of the shaman is that they work through the various spirits that exist, then that feels like it would be different.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
I really think that there are already too many classes with a lot of conceptual overlap. I'd prefer fewer classes with customisation done via subclasses. I'd get at rid at least one of wizard, sorcerer or warlock and I would prefer shaman not to be a new class either.

From a class combiner perspective, should Rogues/Thieves and Fighters be combined into a single "non-magical" class? What distinguishes them? 3.5 had options to let Rogue's sub out sneak attack for extra feats, and fighters do the opposite. Aren't there fighter options over the editions that have focused on Dex and Rogue ones that have focused on Str? Are they basically the same with one path having more HP and access to armor and the other having access to more skills?
 


From a class combiner perspective, should Rogues/Thieves and Fighters be combined into a single "non-magical" class? What distinguishes them? 3.5 had options to let Rogue's sub out sneak attack for extra feats, and fighters do the opposite. Aren't there fighter options over the editions that have focused on Dex and Rogue ones that have focused on Str? Are they basically the same with one path having more HP and access to armor and the other having access to more skills?
I don't think so. Fighters are tough front-line combatants that tend to wear robust armour and use big weapons, rogues are slippery sneaky gits that back stab people. It think this is a a big enough of a difference . Granted, the classic swashbuckler is kind of in awkward midpoint between the two.
 

If we're going to keep the nature caster separate from the divine caster, then druid could be a subtype of shaman and could represent a variety of Shapeshifter types like skinwalkers as well.
Yes, this makes sense. A shaman is a person who communes with spirits and draws power from them. A druid is a shaman who focuses on nature spirits and skin-walking.
 

Remathilis

Legend
From a class combiner perspective, should Rogues/Thieves and Fighters be combined into a single "non-magical" class? What distinguishes them? 3.5 had options to let Rogue's sub out sneak attack for extra feats, and fighters do the opposite. Aren't there fighter options over the editions that have focused on Dex and Rogue ones that have focused on Str? Are they basically the same with one path having more HP and access to armor and the other having access to more skills?
Any time a discussion of "should x be a class" begins, it will inevitably end up down to two classes: spellcaster and nonspellcaster. At that point, you're just one move away from a classless system.

That said, I prefer IF we are going to remove classes, I prefer a 2e-inspired style of four superclasses that sets basic elements and the rest be either subclasses or customizable abilities you can select. Most of your classes can be represented as preselected packages or make your own. That way, if you don't like how an archetype is represented, you can do your own thing within the rules. Win/win.
 
Last edited:

Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
What is the difference between a druid and shaman. Perhaps we should just rename the druid to shaman to alleviate the "only orcs and trolls have shamen" problem.

My ''hot take'' would be to merge bards and druid as one class of loremaster, people leader and spellcasters in deep connection with the traditions of the world and folk magic fueled by communal connection of people, their past and their aspirations. Druids, shaman, skald, galdr, seidr etc would be from that class, to play character such as Merlin or other edge mages. Lets call them Mystics. They use speech, companions or music as spell focus.

Then you would merge cleric and warlock for casters granted powers through their devotion or service to a Power or Belief. No need to have patron and domains. Lets say you have class archetype like ''The Fiery One'': could be use for a priest of a God of fire, a demon from the burning hells, a volcano primordial, a effreeti lord or even a philosophy based around the idea that fire must be brought to the coldest, remotest places in the world to unite people together. Call them Avowed , Cultist or Acolyte. They use sacrifice and offering as spell focus.

Then merge Wizard and Sorcerer for those who use or are infused by the magic of the matter. Lets call them Mages. They are focused on the perceptible results of spellcasting; a the factual design of a spell is to create an effect. While the Mystics and the Avowed are more in negotiation with magic or its source, the Mages calculate, studies and thinker with magic around them or within them with the explicit expectation of a desired result. They use tangible esoteric tools as spell focus.

Then merge Paladin and Rangers. Call them Warden because they are sworn to protect a cause: good vs evil, freedom vs tyranny, civilization vs wilderness or opposition to a specific foes. No matter which side they are on, the Warden is protecting a personal ideal and such focus gives them access to a small number of spells. The Warden is its own spell focus.

Then merge Rogue and Fighter. While other sacrificed their time to master an outside force, the Adventurer perfected one thing: themselves. Knaves, mercenaries, veteran soldiers and dungeon delver, they all focused on their own skills, earning a mastery of social, physical or weapon skill. While other succeed by the power of magic, the Adventurer is relying on its own wits, strengths and presence to resolve the situation they encounter.

Then, final hot take, merge the monk and barbarian to create a class focused on attaining a second-state to shrug off pain and normal worldly restraints. Be it with a trance, rage, cold fury or ecstasy, the Champion is able to forgo the use of mortal instruments such as weapons and armors and keep their mind focused on their goal.
 

MGibster

Legend
I strongly disagree. D&D is well suited for Lovecraftian horror. There are many ways to run a campaign, and while the default will always be classic swords and sorcery, the Lovecraftian horror approach is a ton of fun.

I didn't agree that madness and Lovecraftian horror could never be used in D&D. I agreed that such things should remain in the DM's Guide because cosmic horror and madness are not part of the normal D&D experience.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
I didn't agree that madness and Lovecraftian horror could never be used in D&D. I agreed that such things should remain in the DM's Guide because cosmic horror and madness are not part of the normal D&D experience.
We must play with very different people. Some game nights I'm drooling down my bib and writing on the walls in feces before the snacks even get finished.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top