Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6725456" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Yeah, 4e introduced a new branch of magic parallel to, but distinct from, divine and arcane magic. Similar to how many fans of psionics want it to be "magical," in the sense of being a clearly supernatural force directed by the will of the user, but also "not magical," in the sense of not being D&D Magic™ (that is, neither in the blood, nor in esoteric learning, nor in special miraculous endowment). That branch of magic, in 4e, is "Primal," named after the huge, perhaps infinite, set of Primal Spirits, which are the spontaneously generated genii locorum of the places, essences, seasons, creatures, etc. of the prime material plane.[sblock=Digression about the details of why it's different]They are not deities (in 4e, deities come from the Astral plane) nor are they Elementals (who come from the Elemental Chaos), nor Demons (from the Abyss "beneath" the Elemental Chaos), nor Devils (evil divine beings, also from the Astral plane), nor are they eldritch abominations or perversions of existence (which come from the Far Realm). Thus, although the Primal Spirits would not exist without the world, which was created through the combination of Elemental and Astral powers, their abilities and nature is fundamentally distinct from both sides--and the Primal Spirits don't really like either the elementals or the deities very much. They like the elementals less, since at least the deities usually want to keep the world around and able to support worshippers, but the often-uncaring, flippant attitude deities have toward the survival and prosperity of the world they created means the Primal Spirits often don't get along with the deities in a very generalized sense. That's why 4e doesn't include a lot of direct divine intervention in the "assumed" setting--the Primal Spirits essentially evicted the gods, and don't allow the gods to have direct, overt access to the mortal world most of the time.[/sblock]Anyway, the Shaman was the Primal class which most clearly demonstrated the "spirit" side of the Primal Spirits. It had a Spirit Companion, which could perform certain limited tasks and counted as a square occupied by an ally for various purposes (it blocked enemy passage, but not ally passage; it could help set up flanking; I want to say there were other benefits but I could be mistaken). The Spirit Companion also acted as a sort of mobile "second position" for the Shaman: many, though certainly not all, of its abilities could be cast within range of either the Shaman herself or her spirit companion. The difference between Druid and Shaman, thematically, was that the Druid called more upon the things of the Wild--the animals, plants, and occasionally rocks or weather, of the world--while the Shaman called upon the spirits that represent, empower and are empowered by, the physical things of the world--Grandfather Oak, the Storm Dragon, the Silent Stalker, etc.(Mechanically, the Druid was a controller--e.g. debuffing/hindering enemies, dispatching "mook" types, altering the terrain, summoning--while the Shaman was a leader--restoring HP, granting saves, facilitating attacks, buffing allies. Both had a bit of conceptual overlap, since (a) they were both Primal classes so their fluff was *meant* to be similar, (b) both had a certain degree of "summoning, Shaman mostly just has the one constant spirit companion, Druid could summon temporary animal allies IIRC?, and (c) because of the shared Primal fluff, both were pretty durable and had a slice of "tanky" ("defender," in technical parlance) ability.)While I would not be at all surprised that the implementation would differ--after all, "powers" is not really a thing in 5e--I don't see any problem at all with a Shaman class that uses "spirit" magic, and would in fact consider it to be a fairly positive nod toward both the 3e Spirit Shaman and the 4e Shaman, especially if it had a "spirit companion."</blockquote>

Verification