The Shaman and some Feat Questions

[Infiniti2000]

Also keep in mind that some creatures may have encountered shamans before (or those who multiclassed into shaman, like the cleric in our group) and would be aware of the spirit companions nigh invulnerability. This is especially true with a leader of some sort who might blurt out at the beginning of combat (free action), "Don't bother attacking the companion, you can't hurt him anyway." This of course will irritate your player but hopefully in a good way because you'll be using in-game knowledge. Just don't overdo it and attack the animal companion now and again like Nifft suggests. Heck, a powerful enemy might know what it is and target it personally because he knows he can take it down.

 

[CapnZapp]

If the monsters never attack the spirit companion, I believe the shaman class is severely underpowered. (Otherwise the designers would not have made the SC attackable.)

So if you notice your DM never targets your SC with attacks; or only targets your SC with attacks that have a real chance of being effective - or in other words, your DM is trying his hardest not to waste attacks on your spirit companion - then my suggestion is to consider retiring that character and roll up a new one of a different class.

This is conceptually similar to the rogue's situation. If you play a rogue but never encounter terrain that allows you to set up sneak attacks (other than the ones you get from powers or flanking) you should know your DM is shafting you and you should probably re-roll.

Yes, these cases are about player entitlement. The rules fail to provide enough support for these classes - you need the implicit support from your DM to play them effectively. It is very important to be aware of this dependency on the DM, and IMO the PHBs have a major failing in not telling you about them.

It's not "entitlement" in that you should demand your DM gives you stuff you need. The proper solution is instead to ask your DM to play another character if the necessary implicit support isn't forthcoming.

You can always choose another class that aren't dependent on the DM. For instance; the 3E ranger had this dependency (because the DM could always choose monsters you didn't get your bonus against). In 4E this has been fixed.

For rangers, that is.

 

[DracoSuave]

This kind of got me thinking at work today.

Generally with common at-will abilities, you should be inconsistant as a DM.

By that, I mean, you should decide in advance how types of monsters will react to it. For example, your kobolds might try a few attacks on the spirit companion and even consider it a kill if you're using the 'We Killed Something?' rules for random kobold reactions. Undead, however, might ignore it completely, even to the point of getting the Spirit Opportinity Actions against them.

It should depend on the monster's general proclivities, and should not be consistant from monster type to monster type.

That way, you're not shafting your players, and you don't have to decide things on the spur of the moment.

 

[CapnZapp]

@DS: If you by that mean "you should sometimes have monsters waste attacks on the SC", then I am in agreement.

However, if you mean that DMs should think about it too hard, making in-game "reality" checks, then I'm reluctant. Specifically, by your reasoning, if your DM runs a zombie-based dungeon, then I suggest you don't play a Shaman.

But of course that's not my real suggestion. My real suggestion is for the DM to waste some zombie attacks on the SC! (Or perhaps, more satisfyingly, add in some non-zombie monsters to his dungeon; just as he should make sure there are some shadows and obstacles for a rogue to hide in)

The thing I want you all to take away from this is that for the Shaman to be an effective class, the DM needs (and now I'm repeating myself...) to waste some attacks on the SC. Simple as that!

 

[DracoSuave]

@DS: If you by that mean "you should sometimes have monsters waste attacks on the SC", then I am in agreement.

However, if you mean that DMs should think about it too hard, making in-game "reality" checks, then I'm reluctant. Specifically, by your reasoning, if your DM runs a zombie-based dungeon, then I suggest you don't play a Shaman.

I'm not suggesting that either. But rather, just have the players know that some monsters are fooled be some tricks, others by others. Give each monster an AI and give yourself an idea of how the player's abilities work within that structure.

But, regardless.

Shaman's Spirit taking a hit or two is hardly the important feature of that class. In the case of the unfooled zombies, I'd give the shaman -other- opportunities to shine. Sure they might not be smacking the spirit, but he's getting so many Spirit's Shields off that he's preventing even more damage than had the zombies been just attacking the spirit.

I'm sure the team might prefer Wisdom+Constitution healing every monster's move rather than simply an attack going away.

But of course that's not my real suggestion. My real suggestion is for the DM to waste some zombie attacks on the SC! (Or perhaps, more satisfyingly, add in some non-zombie monsters to his dungeon; just as he should make sure there are some shadows and obstacles for a rogue to hide in)

Or feature other features of that character. Especially for Shamans, who aren't necessarily supposed to be taking the defender's role.

The thing I want you all to take away from this is that for the Shaman to be an effective class, the DM needs (and now I'm repeating myself...) to waste some attacks on the SC. Simple as that!

In this I disagree. Shaman's are supposed to Lead primarily, not Defend (that -might- be a secondary role). There are times where the spirit taking hits isn't appropriate for the shaman to be doing, either because of tactics, or because of the 'AI' of the monsters.

And this is fine... giving the Shaman something else to do is okay.

Same with the rogue. Sometimes cover and concealment isn't always an option for an encounter... but that's okay when the rogue's Theivery is put to use subverting the traps in the encounter as a way to attack the enemies.

More than one way to skin a cat.

 

[Rothe_]

In my opinion the shaman's spirit companion is not really there to absorb hits. It is just a special case of "dismissing it" if some monster gets tired of it standing in a doorway and bashes it with a high damage attack. I would ignore the SC in most cases, unless it is really preventing attacks against the characters.

Shaman's work just fine without their SC being constantly attacked. The SC takes up a square, so it can block corridors and doorways, it can provide healing away from the shaman's location and it can let the shaman attack from two points on the battlefield. That is already very useful.

 

[tylermalan]

Well, in this game that I'm running that has the Shaman player, they've fought zombies once and Kruthiks twice. With the Kruthiks, I'm even more at a loss to explain, in-game, why they don't attack the spirit companion. With zombies, the answer seems easy - they can't smell it or its brains, so they move on. With humans, the answer seems easy, too - they try to hit it once, can't, and move on.

But with creatures that have animal intelligence, it gets a little more rough. It's the whole "dog goes on the defensive when it sees a ghost" thing. The animal instinct is to fight what it perceives as dangerous and in front of it, and the animal brain isn't advanced enough to know that it has no chance of actually defending itself against this "ghost". Couple that with the fact that the spirit companion CAN make attacks, and I don't see why Kruthiks (or dogs or whatever) wouldn't focus on it if it's right in front of them.

I'm playing again this Sunday, so I'll let you all know how it works out. I'll talk to my Shaman player.

 

[Infiniti2000]

So if you notice your DM never targets your SC with attacks; or only targets your SC with attacks that have a real chance of being effective - or in other words, your DM is trying his hardest not to waste attacks on your spirit companion - then my suggestion is to consider retiring that character and roll up a new one of a different class.

I find that the opposite holds true as well. If the DM is always attacking the spirit companion ineffectively, it wastes time, is boring, and therefore contributes negatively to the game.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, but its always easy shooting down "nevers" and "always", eh?

Luckily what I am saying is that the monsters should SOMETIMES attack the SC.

 

[DracoSuave]

Fortunately, the spirit can act as a focus for opportunity actions and can be moved as you please, so if the DM does everything possible to avoid attacking it, you can just move it where they have to take attacks from it to get to you.

If you can't find a use for an invincible movable source of OAs, then you're right, Shaman isn't for you.