| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
 Posted - 09 Aug 2013 : 02:12:58
|
Ya know I like 4e shamans more then I do 3e druid.
I want to keep some of the primordials rather then have Druids following just nature gods. Shaman magic is also much more fun visually to describe.
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4702 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2013 : 02:30:11
|
| I take it you missed, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Edition shamans? |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
 |
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2013 : 02:41:43
|
| No clue about 1st or 2nd but 3rd did not have shamans. besides odd PRC's like hexer. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4490 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2013 : 02:42:09
|
ugh, Spirit Shamans were a mess of problems in 3.5. Their spellcasting wasn't horrible but they lost a LOT of versatility that the Druid brought with spontaneous casting. Their class features, however, only worked in extreamly specific campaigns and were underpowered or didn't come up often enough to warrent their use.
I agree with Silverwolfer that the 4E shaman brought versatility as well as thematic flavor to the sub-type that generated their own cool elements such as spirits and used them where appropriate instead of being required to use spirits that happen to be around wherever they adventured. Also, the easy of transforming the 4E Shaman into a Necromancer with just some flavor text was particularly awesome IMO. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2013 : 02:56:48
|
didnt that OA book have a shaman in it or am I thinking something else in it thats on the tip of my tongue.
yeah yeah its 3.0 but its still 3.x along with 3.5 |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2013 : 02:58:57
|
oh and the 5e guys did state that most if not all classes that appeared in a phb1 would be in 5e's.... or something.
which the shaman is not in a phb1.( cant say about 1 or 2)
btw the spirit shaman was a joke |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2013 : 03:03:22
|
| Spirit was a joke, the shaman in OE was just a supped up cleric with a druid animal companion so not really a "shaman", plus the 4e shaman didin't follow gods, it followed the primodials which is a fun bundle of ignoring gods and having another power source. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4490 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2013 : 06:45:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
oh and the 5e guys did state that most if not all classes that appeared in a phb1 would be in 5e's.... or something.
which the shaman is not in a phb1.( cant say about 1 or 2).
Be wary here. What they said was that classes that appeared in other 1st PHB would be in the D&D: Next PHB in some form or another. This doesn't mean they're rolling out with an Assassin class, but Assassin could be an optional sub-class of the Rogue or a Warlord won't be it's own class (a huge mistake IMO) but maybe a Feat that does similar elements that function like a warlord or maybe a Fighter sub-class.
This has caused quite a bit of confusion, anger, and resentment of the design team as the leave out critical classes like the Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord, or Assassin that have seen the pages of a 1st PHB.
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
btw the spirit shaman was a joke
Agreed. When my wife played one she got bored pretty quick. So I just took it's spell progression and tacked it onto the Druid class. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2013 : 06:46:54
|
| spirit shaman is great as a 5 level dip or something heavily invovling well spirits, gives it a real purpose, but as 5 levels, it is a good melee dip into other PRC's that are melee focused, but not wildshape giving. |
|
|
|
Barastir
Master of Realmslore
Brazil
1607 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2013 : 11:55:07
|
| I kinda liked 2e shamans, although I think its mechanics are a bit complicated. |
"Goodness is not a natural state, but must be
fought for to be attained and maintained.
Lead by example.
Let your deeds speak your intentions.
Goodness radiated from the heart."
The Paladin's Virtues, excerpt from the "Quentin's Monograph"
(by Ed Greenwood) |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12194 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2013 : 13:48:54
|
| Not familiar with the 4e version of the shaman, but it sounds like they were attempting to take on what "swords & sorcery" did with their Titans v/s Gods scenario where there were a lot of druids who served the titans and the clerics mostly (maybe solely) served the gods (note, there were druids who served gods of nature). Then there was another shamanic culture that was revealed in Termana where they worshipped neither gods nor titans, but rather nature spirits (they claimed the titans were just powerful nature spirits). |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Gyor
Master of Realmslore
1632 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2013 : 21:58:07
|
| They'll probably make Shaman a subclass of druid or leds likrly barbarian. |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 11 Aug 2013 : 17:49:03
|
| <_< woah what 5e is using subclasses instead of prc system? |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4490 Posts |
Posted - 11 Aug 2013 : 18:19:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
<_< woah what 5e is using subclasses instead of prc system?
Not really sure yet. So far I haven't seen anything to suggest they've given up on the idea of prestige classes or paragon paths. I know they're using sub-classes as a way of approaching multiple styles within the same class for their diversity but the idea of advanced classes isn't gone. Heck, they haven't even nailed down how the basic classes are going to be done yet and continue to change them from packet to packet. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
Edited by - Diffan on 11 Aug 2013 18:20:20 |
|
|
|
Gyor
Master of Realmslore
1632 Posts |
Posted - 11 Aug 2013 : 21:46:31
|
| Acane Archer is now a feat, feats are buffed and way cooler, so more basic and less class specific paragon paths and prestige classes maybe come a feat or series of feats with more class focused stuff as subclasses. |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2013 : 08:10:08
|
| Am really rather fond of the 3.5 style of classes, and would not mind if Tome of Battle was used to inspire a way to bridge the gap between God Mode Wizards and Sword and Shield types. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12194 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2013 : 18:53:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
Acane Archer is now a feat, feats are buffed and way cooler, so more basic and less class specific paragon paths and prestige classes maybe come a feat or series of feats with more class focused stuff as subclasses.
I wouldn't be adverse to this idea, as long as there's a LOT of feat points. That was a problem in 4e that pathfinder somewhat fixed. There's also needs to be a kind of "lesser feat" and "greater feat" and "epic feat" concept worked out personnaly. For instance, something that maybe gives you a +2 bonus on say 2 skills... that should be a lesser feat and you should get plenty of those. Something makes your spells much harder to resist though, that should be in the "greater feat" category. The "epic" stuff shouldn't only be for upper level characters, but rather very character defining "feats" that open up a plethora of options (so maybe I chose a poor word by saying epic). For instance, you create some feat and it really opens up melee capability for a mage (gives them light armor, martial weapon proficiency, increases their hit dice, and maybe opens the ability to use int instead of str for their attack bonus). Another similar feat might focus on thievery... another on being a specialist in a certain type of magic (giving a bonus on that type of magic to make it more effective v/s saves, possibly increasing spellcaster levels, damage, adding bonus spells, etc...) |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4490 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2013 : 21:35:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
Am really rather fond of the 3.5 style of classes, and would not mind if Tome of Battle was used to inspire a way to bridge the gap between God Mode Wizards and Sword and Shield types.
Well with saving throws being what they are, spell DCs not scaling into the stratosphere, and not having LFQW are all steps in removing God Mode Wizards from the game. Their spell slots are a lot fewer and they have strict limits on scrolls they can have memorized, which also keeps their aresnal in check.
But I generally agree that some Tome of Battle-esque things would go a LONG way to establishing what a lot of 4E fans have enjoyed these past 5 years in terms of options on a round-to-round basis. Having codified maneuvers that says "I can do this AND attack" is pretty cool vs. "I can do this OR attack". Also, it adds another level of progression complexity to class design. If I'm playing a Fighter and the only thing I can choose from is a feat or rolling my HP between when I level, then I think leveling up is rather boring and *yawn*. But if I can get the opportunity to learn a new stance or maneuver, that puts it on par with other classes who can select spells as they level.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I wouldn't be adverse to this idea, as long as there's a LOT of feat points. That was a problem in 4e that pathfinder somewhat fixed. There's also needs to be a kind of "lesser feat" and "greater feat" and "epic feat" concept worked out personnaly. For instance, something that maybe gives you a +2 bonus on say 2 skills... that should be a lesser feat and you should get plenty of those. Something makes your spells much harder to resist though, that should be in the "greater feat" category. The "epic" stuff shouldn't only be for upper level characters, but rather very character defining "feats" that open up a plethora of options (so maybe I chose a poor word by saying epic). For instance, you create some feat and it really opens up melee capability for a mage (gives them light armor, martial weapon proficiency, increases their hit dice, and maybe opens the ability to use int instead of str for their attack bonus). Another similar feat might focus on thievery... another on being a specialist in a certain type of magic (giving a bonus on that type of magic to make it more effective v/s saves, possibly increasing spellcaster levels, damage, adding bonus spells, etc...)
I'm not sure how this will pan out judging by the latest packet. Since feats are now optional, they're gained ONLY by your class. Meaning that your class progression depicts when you can obtain a feat. Fighters get the most opportunities to obtain feats with seven over a 20 level span. Other classes, like Wizard and Clerics get only 4 over a 20 level span.
Now feats ARE stronger in their usage and often provide 2 to 3 features within one such as gaining weapon prof., being able to attack multiple foes with a penalty in a single turn, or using a Polearm as a double weapon. I just don't think they're big enough to warrent filling ALL of a prestige class style into them, espically when a character only gets 4 to 7 in a lifetime progression.
Prestige classes/Paragon Paths should be in the game and I hope they make them fit into the overall aspect of your class progression, much like 4E or fulfill some sort of prereq to enter if your not of the appropriate base class. For example ALL paladins who are Lawful Good can become Justicars of Tyr but if your a Fighter who's devote and has, say...the Divine Initiate feat he could quest or perform some heroic act for the church of Tyr to be inducted into their ranks. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2511 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2013 : 06:24:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I agree with Silverwolfer that the 4E shaman brought versatility as well as thematic flavor to the sub-type that generated their own cool elements such as spirits and used them where appropriate instead of being required to use spirits that happen to be around wherever they adventured. Also, the easy of transforming the 4E Shaman into a Necromancer with just some flavor text was particularly awesome IMO.
Okay, what do you think is done better and what worse than in [url=http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=4077]Shaman (9507)[/url] and [url=http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=2699]PO:S&M[/url] versions? |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4490 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2013 : 13:51:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I agree with Silverwolfer that the 4E shaman brought versatility as well as thematic flavor to the sub-type that generated their own cool elements such as spirits and used them where appropriate instead of being required to use spirits that happen to be around wherever they adventured. Also, the easy of transforming the 4E Shaman into a Necromancer with just some flavor text was particularly awesome IMO.
Okay, what do you think is done better and what worse than in Shaman (9507) and PO:S&M versions?
I honestly don't know. Having only played AD&D for a short time I was limited on the choices I was exposed to. Also, because I was brand new I was relegated to playing either a Paladin or Fighter, decreed so by the DM. I asked about Wizards and Druids but he laughed and said "no, they're far to advanced for you. stick to hitting things with swords." One of the first reasons why I refuse to play AD&D.
So I'm not sure what the difference is between the Shaman in both books. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2013 : 14:03:20
|
Chivalry & Sorcery (one of the bestest games EVA) had a 'primitive caster' group of magic-users that all behaved similarly, and would include the witch, Shamans, druids, witchdoctors, hedge wizards and 'wise women', etc.
So my thoughts are to take that - a single set of rules governing a group of casters (and obviously sorcerers) - and then when someone picks a particular flavor of it, they get certain specific feats and abilities. This should carry-through to higher levels, with new feats and abilities appearing for the specific sub-class (like the druid's shapechange, or a witch gaining additional familiars). 'Cursing' should of course be a basic (supernatural) ability of the entire group (and not the foul-language kind LOL).
This arrangement harkens back to 2e's kits, when applied to priests of specific gods. Its also similar to how specialist wizards were handled. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 15 Aug 2013 14:05:25 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4490 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2013 : 15:57:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Chivalry & Sorcery (one of the bestest games EVA) had a 'primitive caster' group of magic-users that all behaved similarly, and would include the witch, Shamans, druids, witchdoctors, hedge wizards and 'wise women', etc.
So my thoughts are to take that - a single set of rules governing a group of casters (and obviously sorcerers) - and then when someone picks a particular flavor of it, they get certain specific feats and abilities. This should carry-through to higher levels, with new feats and abilities appearing for the specific sub-class (like the druid's shapechange, or a witch gaining additional familiars). 'Cursing' should of course be a basic (supernatural) ability of the entire group (and not the foul-language kind LOL).
This arrangement harkens back to 2e's kits, when applied to priests of specific gods. Its also similar to how specialist wizards were handled.
5E is doing something similiar with the Mage class. In the latest packet, the Wizard was replaced with Mage who had a Wizard sub-class. This is, IMO, going to be the catch-all MU class that'll have sub-classes for things like Sorcerers, Wizards, Warlocks, etc. I could see something similiar being done with the Shaman under the Druid. By removing some key features, you can replace animal companion with a spirit companion and replace the wild shape with some sort of invocation that triggers when your spirit companion performs some task. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2013 : 18:31:34
|
| There were 3 or 4 variants on the shaman back in 2nd edition. I was a particular fan of the faith-specific ones from the Realms. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2013 : 20:48:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
5E is doing something similiar with the Mage class. In the latest packet, the Wizard was replaced with Mage who had a Wizard sub-class. This is, IMO, going to be the catch-all MU class that'll have sub-classes for things like Sorcerers, Wizards, Warlocks, etc. I could see something similiar being done with the Shaman under the Druid. By removing some key features, you can replace animal companion with a spirit companion and replace the wild shape with some sort of invocation that triggers when your spirit companion performs some task.
That is great - I love this modular approach they are embracing.
By using larger chunks of rules (Wizard, Sorcerer, etc) and then breaking them down into various 'paths' (magic-user sub-classes), we get both the customization that 3e allowed, but without the plethora of crunch that went along with everything, and we also get the more simplistic approach of OD&D and 4e (where a use-once NPC was merely a statblock, and didn't take two hours to design).
I hope they do the same with other things; for instance, a paladin is really nothing more then a multi-classed cleric/fighter. If you provide synergistic feats (feats that only work with 2 or more classes as PreReq's), you take care of all that extra rules overhead. Those feats could even be along the lines of rewards for multi-classing, like giving a ftr3/clr1 a free warhorse.
By having only a few main classes and creating sub-classes, you harken back to the good old days of D&D, and yet create the opportunity to bring tons of new customizations to the game. PrCs then become multi-class sub-class options. For example, you want to create a 'mystic warrior' (something like the legendary Ninjas), you would combine a psionics class with a fighter class. You want a deadly assassin, you combine fighter with rogue, etc, etc. You unlock new feats by the path you take. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 15 Aug 2013 20:52:04 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
something i do want to keep that is 4e shamans
