There's a reason neither of these two classes returned for 5e (I'm somewhat convinced that Avenger didn't return in-name because 4e PH2 predated 2012's Avengers release, and Invoker didn't return because Warlocks got back their invocations from 3.5e.
DND 3.0 CLASS SHAMAN FULL
But a full on class called Shaman is about as culturally insensitive, pigeonholing, and limited as a full on "Warlord" class. I could see a Medicine-Man/Wise Woman/White Witch type subclass for Artificers, for example. There is plenty of room for additional subclasses to reflect various iterations on the concept from different base-class angles. Totem Warrior & Ancestral Guardian Barbarians, Bards (esp College of Spirits), Nature Domain Cleric, Trickery Domain Cleric, Arcana Domain Cleric, Tempest Domain Cleric, Druids, Monks, Rangers, even Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards can reflect Shamanic roles. Many of these concepts have shown up in different classes. It can mean a "tribal" or "noncivilised" (aka offensively stereotyped) spiritual leader. It can mean a druid-type character but not from the Celtic world. It can mean a nature spirit communer/evoker/summoner. It can mean a spirit-channeller (medium). The problem is that Shaman means different things to different people. What we need a a Primal Spirit Otherworldly Patron, and some invocations that speak to shamanic flavour. Most versions of it I've seen are Wisdom-based or even Charisma-based primal warlocks, essentially. I don't think we need a full-on Shaman class. So what do you think? Should D&D get a full on official spiritual class? Would you want one as a player? DM? And it could sell from some sideline classes like 3e's binder and 4e's seeker. A wandering youth with strong spiritual awareness passed down in the family's blood hunting their the enemies of their household.ĭ&D already has many shaman and spiritual classes in its history. Or maybe the power it's dead but too weak to form a pact not a church and must stay with their follower closely. A shaman could be a chosen of a fallen power too dead to create warlocks but strong enough to bind with a single host.
DND 3.0 CLASS SHAMAN PC
Another PC who just be a warrior haunted by the ghost of their dead ancestors. Another could be like a upgraded spirit bard, storing knowledge from contacted spirits. A PC could be a classical fantasy shaman and be a religious priest. And socially, the class would beable to contactand communicate with nearby fey, undead, and other spirits as well as draw on the knowledge of their own spirits.Īs characters there would be several ways to go. In exploration, the class would be able control and summon spirits and utilize their skills and movement. In combat, spirits could fight on their own, support the shaman's attacks, empower the shaman's spells, or heal allies. With Channel Divinity, Bardic Inspiration, and Wildshape no longer a concern, a shaman could fully go the companion and guide route. And enforces too much Eurocentrism that the game already has.Īs for what the shaman could do, There are a lot that could be done with spirits. There is little design space within any of these classes to power a spirit theme in combat, exploration, social, and roleplay strength.Īnd besides, having Clerics and Druids represent all religious priests will really dilute the flavor of them if done too long. Bards, Clerics, Druids,Warlocks, and Wizards already have so much going on with them. Not to derail other thread, I will create a new one.Īfter seeing the College of Spirits Bard and the Circle of Shepherds Druid, I think it is high time for a full on "Spirits" class for 5e.īolting spirits onto existing full spellcasters with their own other class features really limits what could be done with spirits.
0 kommentar(er)
