Well, I think it's still too early to say whenever SoD's Shaman will have a spirit companion or not. Even Spirit Shamans can have a Telthor(/spirit animal) companion by taking a feat.
Who knows, perhaps SoD's Shaman has elements of the Shaman. Or the Shaman. Or maybe even the Shaman! Truly, seldom have I seen another class with so many variants as this one in all of AD&D/D&D/Pathfinder. :P
Well, I think it's still too early to say whenever SoD's Shaman will have a spirit companion or not. Even Spirit Shamans can have a Telthor(/spirit animal) companion by taking a feat.
Who knows, perhaps SoD's Shaman has elements of the Shaman. Or the Shaman. Or maybe even the Shaman! Truly, seldom have I seen another class with so many variants as this one in all of AD&D/D&D/Pathfinder. :P
Well, I think that may just be a function of the fact that it's not a standard class in the core rulebook. Both AD&D and d20 proliferated a *ton* of material, both official and unofficial, and very little of it was cross-referenced or funnelled through a common editor. Thus you've got a couple different "official" versions of the Shaman. I've a feeling that BG's Shaman class is just going to be another of those
btw, I didn't click all your links, Kamigoroshi, but did you include the version of the Shaman from 3.5 Oriental Adventures?
Nah, every single Shaman I've linked to is from d20PFSRD. One is a hybrid class from Pathfinder between an Oracle and a Witch. The other two are part of third party material for said Pathfinder campaign setting. Still, I found all three articles to be very interesting.
My personal guess is that the Shaman is loosely based on the 4e class with large elements of the core BG summoning mechanics which are already present.
We know that the class has “nearly unlimited summoning” ... that summoning something renders the caster immobile … and that there is some kind of access to spells.
The shaman probably can’t cast spells directly (unless it’s specialized summoning spells) but that the summoned spirits do have spells that they can cast in many cases. Think of this as a loose cross between summon nymph and project image.
I’m honestly unsure at this point if locking the shaman in place is a thematic thing (imagine a small ritual going on to conjure and control the spirit for the duration), a homage thing (4e class acts mostly through it’s spirits power wise), or a mechanical thing (balance / conservation of action economy). In any event it’s the one thing that I’m not looking forward to on the class. Personally in the BG game I find it pretty annoying to deal with effects like this. When I use Project Image there nearly always comes a time where the party is waiting for the Mage to ‘catch up’ after the effect ends. The net result is dead play where I click on the screen, then go do something else in real life while I wait for the game to be where I want it to be. It’s pretty immersion breaking and as a result I tend to not abuse Project Image nearly as much as I could. But with the shaman we are talking about a class where *this is their main thing* and they do it all the time. Really it’s what I’m looking forward to the least out of this new class.
That negativity out of the way, I am happy that we are getting a new class, and that it looks like it will be mechanically distinct. I hope that the in game play is better than I’m concerned about.
We know the shaman casts druid spells spontaneously, like a sorcerer. The summoning is a separate ability.
We have been told the effect of the summon is location specific. It appears to be a toggle. Shaman also appears (or at least did at one time) to be able to detect traps.
We know the shaman casts druid spells spontaneously, like a sorcerer. The summoning is a separate ability.
Actually I'm not sure that we do know that.
Yes, I heard the comment about the shaman being like the sorcerer, but I took that to mean that the class was separate from the Cleric and Druid the same way that the Sorcerer isn't a subclass of the Mage. I understand that most folks jumped to spontaneous spellcasting, and maybe it does work that way, but personally I don't think that's what was meant.
Why are some of these new kits and classes sometimes based on newer editions, instead of 2e?
Not that I mind that much, but I'm guessing there is a handbook filled with a number of unused kits from 2e. So I'm just curious.
It's not a simple question. The Barbarian and Sorcerer seem to have been added because third edition was current, new and shiny at the time when BG2 was released.
The shaman appears to be a class for mechanical reasons. It has it's own buttons on the UI - kits share the buttons of thier parent class. And it appears to be a largely original Beamdog creation, rather than based on any particular edition. I think Beamdog just sat down and asked themselves "what abilities would we like our goblin to have? and "what cool things is the engine capable of?"
Why are some of these new kits and classes sometimes based on newer editions, instead of 2e?
Not that I mind that much, but I'm guessing there is a handbook filled with a number of unused kits from 2e. So I'm just curious.
It's not a simple question. The Barbarian and Sorcerer seem to have been added because third edition was current, new and shiny at the time when BG2 was released.
The shaman appears to be a class for mechanical reasons. It has it's own buttons on the UI - kits share the buttons of thier parent class. And it appears to be a largely original Beamdog creation, rather than based on any particular edition. I think Beamdog just sat down and asked themselves "what abilities would we like our goblin to have? and "what cool things is the engine capable of?"
That sounds about right.. Though I like to imagine their motives a bit more ..boasting.. More or less like "look what we can do with the IE! " After all, if they where serious they would add more bard kits and other bard improvements. I mean, seriously, what else do you need than a bard? Ultimate class and all that u_u
..Sorry too much coffee in the mroning - and I love your work so far Beamdog ;-)
Why are some of these new kits and classes sometimes based on newer editions, instead of 2e?
Not that I mind that much, but I'm guessing there is a handbook filled with a number of unused kits from 2e. So I'm just curious.
There are literally a *ton* of possible 2nd ed kits that could be used to expand the IE repertoire. Even if they, from here on in, stuck only with the Forgotten Realms specific material, they'd have enough fodder for BAJILLIONS of content patches. Yes, I said BAJILLIONS.
And yes, you are correct, the three classes that were added in the original BG2 (Barbarian, Monk and Sorcerer) were included because the advent of 3rd edition was nigh. But a couple of engine-specific points:
•It's worth noting that the Charisma requirements of the Sorcerer aren't a thing in BG2. Either it's because the people making BG2 recognized that this was one of the silliest ideas ever tossed into the design framework of a tabletop RPG (done pretty much solely for the fact that in past editions of D&D, Charisma was the stat most often plundered by munchkins to gain better scores in one of the other stats, so they made up a more different kind of wizard and arbitrarily said "He uses Charisma, for... reasons"), or because it would have been too much trouble to rework the engine to accomodate a new class that was basically the same thing as a wizard except it took bonuses from Charisma (for... reasons).
•It's also worth noting that the Barbarian is a little redundant in the scheme of BG2 (or, maybe more accurately, it makes *other* classes/kits redundant). Unlike what most people here have been saying, a Barbarian class did, in fact, exist prior to 3rd edition (it was considered a "core" class in mid-late 1st edition [after the release of Unearthed Arcana], and was integrated back into the 2nd edition game in a couple different iterations [as a kit in the Fighter's Handbook, and as a basically stand-alone class in the Complete Barbarian's Handbook] -- although it's worth noting that, with minimal fuss, you could basically continue to play your 1st edition Barbarian in a 2nd edition game because the rules were almost entirely the same [save for a slight revamp of the proficiencies mechanic]), but the BG2 rendition is mostly just a suped-up version of the Fighter's Berserker kit. In fact, with the Barbarian option being available to all races, there's almost no reason to even play as a Berserker, unless you really like plate mail. (and since the BG2 version of the Barbarian has absolutely no problem using magic weapons or adventuring alongside wizards...)
•The Monk also was a 1st edition mainstay that originally didn't make it into the 2nd edition core rules. I actually kind of like the fact that the Monk plays similarly to the way it did in 1st edition: kinda weak to start, and massively powerful in the higher levels. However, one thing I don't like is that the Monk and the Barbarian both share the Fighter's stronghold questline. It sort of speaks to the notion that these three classes were shoehorned into the sequel because of the impending release of 3rd edition; they are mechanically different classes, but even though they're thematically very very different they're forced to share this really important fortress mechanic.
And we are talking about CHARNAME here, you know, someone brought up in a library? They are hardly a member of a nomadic culture, whatever their race.
Correct me if I am mistaken but in 3.5 any race can be any class so I'm not sure if that really applies.
There are some prestige-classes with specific backgrounds, but I'm pretty sure there are no basic classes that have race-restrictions.
(The prestige classes that come to mind are: Dwarven Defender - dwarf, Arcane Archer - (half) Elf, Wizard of Thay- Thayan Human and so on. But imho these are more lore/cultural restrictions, there is little *actual* reason why a human raised by dwarves couldn't receive defender training. Or a (free) elf be a thayan wizard - if s/he gets recognised as a fellow mage in Thay.)
There are some prestige-classes with specific backgrounds, but I'm pretty sure there are no basic classes that have race-restrictions.
There kinda were, but Ghostwalk's Eidolon and Eidoloncer (both requiring being a ghost) had some weird prestige class-y things going on, and assumed different things about death and the afterlife than FR.
And we are talking about CHARNAME here, you know, someone brought up in a library? They are hardly a member of a nomadic culture, whatever their race.
Correct me if I am mistaken but in 3.5 any race can be any class so I'm not sure if that really applies.
There are some prestige-classes with specific backgrounds, but I'm pretty sure there are no basic classes that have race-restrictions.
(The prestige classes that come to mind are: Dwarven Defender - dwarf, Arcane Archer - (half) Elf, Wizard of Thay- Thayan Human and so on. But imho these are more lore/cultural restrictions, there is little *actual* reason why a human raised by dwarves couldn't receive defender training. Or a (free) elf be a thayan wizard - if s/he gets recognised as a fellow mage in Thay.)
I agree with you about the Dwarven Defender, but I think the institutionalised racism in Thay would prevent any academy training an elf (unless disguised). I guess a renegade Red Wizard could train an elf.
I agree with you about the Dwarven Defender, but I think the institutionalised racism in Thay would prevent any academy training an elf (unless disguised). I guess a renegade Red Wizard could train an elf.
lol... let's remember our best example of a renegade Thayvian is Edwin. Do you see Edwin voluntarily giving Red Wizard lessons to anybody, elf or no?
I agree with you about the Dwarven Defender, but I think the institutionalised racism in Thay would prevent any academy training an elf (unless disguised). I guess a renegade Red Wizard could train an elf.
lol... let's remember our best example of a renegade Thayvian is Edwin. Do you see Edwin voluntarily giving Red Wizard lessons to anybody, elf or no?
Actually, there *are* nice thayans. not everyone there is a megalomaniac =P
(Then again, it seems many ppl working within D&D think it is absolutly neccessary for an evil person to be rude and dislikeable. If we have rude, unlikeable heroes who care mostly about the greater good, then we *should* also have friendly, polite evil characters who simply want to rule without drowning kittens. Not everything that apepars nice & friendly is done by a Paladin.. Sometimes it just made to increase rep. Why kill every oposition if you can turn them into your supporters? Good ppl are the best servants, because they wouldn't assassinate you. Also, if someone attacks my property I will punish him and not kill more of my property because they are useless. Why would I punish *myself*? oO )
Given that both the Shaman from The Complete Book of Humanoids and Faiths and Avatars (possibly Shamans from other AD&D sources as well) can be of any alignment, I'd say SoD's Shaman most likely won't be restricted in that regard as well. They aren't really interested in the balance of things either. So an TN alignment restriction would look really out of place here, in my honest opinion.
I'm more concerned what happens to them and BGII's strongholds. As I see it, the most likey stronghold candidate for Shamans would be the Druid Enclave. Then again, there's also the possibility that they either won't have a stronghold in the first place. Or maybe even get a new one altogether. In any case, I just hope they won't get shoehorned into either of the three Cleric strongholds.
Shaman is a tough one. The text of the De'Arnise keep specificly mentions fighting types for Nalia to hide behind, and Blackguards *are* fighting types (and giving Monks the keep was the idea of bioware) where else would you put them?
I think the placing of Shamans would depend on the lore Beamdog uses for them.. If they are described as barbarian priests then they will (or should) get the Cleric stronghold. if they are described of being a medium for the spirits of nature, then the Druid grove would be more fitting. I could actually see the Ranger stronghold working. If the Shaman is described as the leader/advisor of a tribe and also a guardian (through the spirits) then you could make the argument for it ^^.
A big stretch would be the Mage stronghold. i think you could only get it through a mystical/magical advisor angle, able to teach the barbarian "magic" (and it isn't like a sorcerer would be able to actually teach magic himself either =P)
Thief & Bard strongholds are completly impossible, Fighter & Paladin would be a HUGE stretch.
My money is on the druid grove, because the Shaman *sounds* like a medium of nature to me (though I would love to see him/her getting the Rangers cabin - if they are willing/able to throw a couple of lines into the dialogue to explain it ^^)
where would you put them @shawne ? Especially if you consider that Beamdog most probably can't create a new stronghold (contract wise)..
@Arcanis: That's exactly my point - if they didn't bother giving blackguards a stronghold that made sense (since you have to follow the Keep questline or lose the place, but why would a blackguard be dealing with marriage proposals and appeasing angry merchants?), they're not going to make more of an effort for shamans. It'll just be the Druid Grove, with the Grove questline. They'll be calling you "Great Druid" by the end of it. *shrug*
@shawne my main problems come through words like "bother" ;-) Which of the *existing* strongholds would have made sense? Cleric of Talos would be a stretch too.. Also, I actually think that the keep would be a good lession for the blackguard: you need good PR and an affinity for politics to actually rule. He can disguise his true nature to rule and profit, or he can outlive is violent impulses and lose it all. You have to admit that this strongehold makes as much sense for a blackguard than for any other evil character. The problem *could* be, that it is a "good" stronghold and thus flawed for every evil character (I disagree, but to everyone his7her own ^^)
But regardless of such ideas, I stand by my version that Beamdog was not legally allowed to add another keep. Thus they *had* to add the class to an existing one and keep was the most logical.
Setting aside that the Blackguard isn't even a Fighter kit to begin with, the problem isn't the location, it's the questline.
They could have sent Blackguard PCs to the Order of the Radiant Heart, have them wipe out everyone inside and defile the place, and then do a few evil quests for your patron (you know, that demon that's mentioned in the kit biography). But no, you need to allow a priest of Tempus to set up shop, and make sure poor Chanelle chooses love over money, and do all sorts of things that make absolutely no sense for a character that is designed to be Evil (there are Good Fighters, Neutral Fighters and Evil Fighters; there are no Good or Neutral Blackguards).
So, yeah, this isn't a legal issue. It's just another oversight.
I still think that the quest is as weak for a evil fighter or monk as it is for a blackguard. But I also think that you don't always need to succed with every character ^^ (yeah we need more quests where a good aproach "fails" )
And I still think it is a legal issue and quite frankly, I have yet to see evidence towards the contrary. (Also, since they had to code it in that the Blackguard gets the keep you can't call it an oversight, at most a bad/wrong decision)
They *can't* use the Druid stronghold. The Druid Grove questline is one of the few that are actually hard-wired to the class itself: you need to complete the questline and meet the challenges in order to advance in level. Since we expect the Shaman will be its own class (and know for sure it won't be a Druid kit), we can safely assume that the Shaman won't have the kind of levelling limitations that the Druid class does.
So not only would it not make sense to do, it's really just not possible because of the way the classes are set up. The more likely alternatives for the Shaman would be either the Cleric questline or the Ranger questline.
Comments
Who knows, perhaps SoD's Shaman has elements of the Shaman. Or the Shaman. Or maybe even the Shaman! Truly, seldom have I seen another class with so many variants as this one in all of AD&D/D&D/Pathfinder. :P
btw, I didn't click all your links, Kamigoroshi, but did you include the version of the Shaman from 3.5 Oriental Adventures?
We know that the class has “nearly unlimited summoning” ... that summoning something renders the caster immobile … and that there is some kind of access to spells.
The shaman probably can’t cast spells directly (unless it’s specialized summoning spells) but that the summoned spirits do have spells that they can cast in many cases. Think of this as a loose cross between summon nymph and project image.
I’m honestly unsure at this point if locking the shaman in place is a thematic thing (imagine a small ritual going on to conjure and control the spirit for the duration), a homage thing (4e class acts mostly through it’s spirits power wise), or a mechanical thing (balance / conservation of action economy). In any event it’s the one thing that I’m not looking forward to on the class. Personally in the BG game I find it pretty annoying to deal with effects like this. When I use Project Image there nearly always comes a time where the party is waiting for the Mage to ‘catch up’ after the effect ends. The net result is dead play where I click on the screen, then go do something else in real life while I wait for the game to be where I want it to be. It’s pretty immersion breaking and as a result I tend to not abuse Project Image nearly as much as I could. But with the shaman we are talking about a class where *this is their main thing* and they do it all the time. Really it’s what I’m looking forward to the least out of this new class.
That negativity out of the way, I am happy that we are getting a new class, and that it looks like it will be mechanically distinct. I hope that the in game play is better than I’m concerned about.
We have been told the effect of the summon is location specific. It appears to be a toggle. Shaman also appears (or at least did at one time) to be able to detect traps.
Yes, I heard the comment about the shaman being like the sorcerer, but I took that to mean that the class was separate from the Cleric and Druid the same way that the Sorcerer isn't a subclass of the Mage. I understand that most folks jumped to spontaneous spellcasting, and maybe it does work that way, but personally I don't think that's what was meant.
Not that I mind that much, but I'm guessing there is a handbook filled with a number of unused kits from 2e. So I'm just curious.
The shaman appears to be a class for mechanical reasons. It has it's own buttons on the UI - kits share the buttons of thier parent class. And it appears to be a largely original Beamdog creation, rather than based on any particular edition. I think Beamdog just sat down and asked themselves "what abilities would we like our goblin to have? and "what cool things is the engine capable of?"
More or less like "look what we can do with the IE!
add more bard kits and other bard improvements. I mean, seriously, what else do you need than a bard?
Ultimate class and all that u_u
..Sorry too much coffee in the mroning - and I love your work so far Beamdog ;-)
And yes, you are correct, the three classes that were added in the original BG2 (Barbarian, Monk and Sorcerer) were included because the advent of 3rd edition was nigh. But a couple of engine-specific points:
•It's worth noting that the Charisma requirements of the Sorcerer aren't a thing in BG2. Either it's because the people making BG2 recognized that this was one of the silliest ideas ever tossed into the design framework of a tabletop RPG (done pretty much solely for the fact that in past editions of D&D, Charisma was the stat most often plundered by munchkins to gain better scores in one of the other stats, so they made up a more different kind of wizard and arbitrarily said "He uses Charisma, for... reasons"), or because it would have been too much trouble to rework the engine to accomodate a new class that was basically the same thing as a wizard except it took bonuses from Charisma (for... reasons).
•It's also worth noting that the Barbarian is a little redundant in the scheme of BG2 (or, maybe more accurately, it makes *other* classes/kits redundant). Unlike what most people here have been saying, a Barbarian class did, in fact, exist prior to 3rd edition (it was considered a "core" class in mid-late 1st edition [after the release of Unearthed Arcana], and was integrated back into the 2nd edition game in a couple different iterations [as a kit in the Fighter's Handbook, and as a basically stand-alone class in the Complete Barbarian's Handbook] -- although it's worth noting that, with minimal fuss, you could basically continue to play your 1st edition Barbarian in a 2nd edition game because the rules were almost entirely the same [save for a slight revamp of the proficiencies mechanic]), but the BG2 rendition is mostly just a suped-up version of the Fighter's Berserker kit. In fact, with the Barbarian option being available to all races, there's almost no reason to even play as a Berserker, unless you really like plate mail. (and since the BG2 version of the Barbarian has absolutely no problem using magic weapons or adventuring alongside wizards...)
•The Monk also was a 1st edition mainstay that originally didn't make it into the 2nd edition core rules. I actually kind of like the fact that the Monk plays similarly to the way it did in 1st edition: kinda weak to start, and massively powerful in the higher levels. However, one thing I don't like is that the Monk and the Barbarian both share the Fighter's stronghold questline. It sort of speaks to the notion that these three classes were shoehorned into the sequel because of the impending release of 3rd edition; they are mechanically different classes, but even though they're thematically very very different they're forced to share this really important fortress mechanic.
that have race-restrictions.
(The prestige classes that come to mind are:
Dwarven Defender - dwarf, Arcane Archer - (half) Elf, Wizard of Thay- Thayan Human and so on.
But imho these are more lore/cultural restrictions, there is little *actual* reason why a human raised
by dwarves couldn't receive defender training. Or a (free) elf be a thayan wizard - if s/he gets recognised
as a fellow mage in Thay.)
(Then again, it seems many ppl working within D&D think it is absolutly neccessary for an evil person
to be rude and dislikeable. If we have rude, unlikeable heroes who care mostly about the greater good,
then we *should* also have friendly, polite evil characters who simply want to rule without drowning kittens.
Not everything that apepars nice & friendly is done by a Paladin.. Sometimes it just made to increase rep.
Why kill every oposition if you can turn them into your supporters? Good ppl are the best servants, because
they wouldn't assassinate you. Also, if someone attacks my property I will punish him and not kill more
of my property because they are useless. Why would I punish *myself*? oO )
I want to cast druid spells while evil, not like druids being TN only ever made any sense in 2e.
I'm more concerned what happens to them and BGII's strongholds. As I see it, the most likey stronghold candidate for Shamans would be the Druid Enclave. Then again, there's also the possibility that they either won't have a stronghold in the first place. Or maybe even get a new one altogether. In any case, I just hope they won't get shoehorned into either of the three Cleric strongholds.
The text of the De'Arnise keep specificly mentions fighting types for Nalia to hide behind, and Blackguards
*are* fighting types (and giving Monks the keep was the idea of bioware) where else would you put them?
I think the placing of Shamans would depend on the lore Beamdog uses for them.. If they are described as
barbarian priests then they will (or should) get the Cleric stronghold. if they are described of being a
medium for the spirits of nature, then the Druid grove would be more fitting.
I could actually see the Ranger stronghold working. If the Shaman is described as the leader/advisor
of a tribe and also a guardian (through the spirits) then you could make the argument for it ^^.
A big stretch would be the Mage stronghold. i think you could only get it through a mystical/magical
advisor angle, able to teach the barbarian "magic" (and it isn't like a sorcerer would be able to actually
teach magic himself either =P)
Thief & Bard strongholds are completly impossible, Fighter & Paladin would be a HUGE stretch.
My money is on the druid grove, because the Shaman *sounds* like a medium of nature to me
(though I would love to see him/her getting the Rangers cabin - if they are willing/able to throw a
couple of lines into the dialogue to explain it ^^)
where would you put them @shawne ? Especially if you consider that Beamdog most probably can't
create a new stronghold (contract wise)..
Which of the *existing* strongholds would have made sense?
Cleric of Talos would be a stretch too.. Also, I actually think that the keep would be a good lession for
the blackguard: you need good PR and an affinity for politics to actually rule.
He can disguise his true nature to rule and profit, or he can outlive is violent impulses and lose it all.
You have to admit that this strongehold makes as much sense for a blackguard than for any other
evil character. The problem *could* be, that it is a "good" stronghold and thus flawed for every evil
character (I disagree, but to everyone his7her own ^^)
But regardless of such ideas, I stand by my version that Beamdog was not legally allowed to add another
keep. Thus they *had* to add the class to an existing one and keep was the most logical.
They could have sent Blackguard PCs to the Order of the Radiant Heart, have them wipe out everyone inside and defile the place, and then do a few evil quests for your patron (you know, that demon that's mentioned in the kit biography). But no, you need to allow a priest of Tempus to set up shop, and make sure poor Chanelle chooses love over money, and do all sorts of things that make absolutely no sense for a character that is designed to be Evil (there are Good Fighters, Neutral Fighters and Evil Fighters; there are no Good or Neutral Blackguards).
So, yeah, this isn't a legal issue. It's just another oversight.
But I also think that you don't always need to succed with every character ^^ (yeah we need more
quests where a good aproach "fails"
And I still think it is a legal issue and quite frankly, I have yet to see evidence towards the contrary.
(Also, since they had to code it in that the Blackguard gets the keep you can't call it an oversight,
at most a bad/wrong decision)
So not only would it not make sense to do, it's really just not possible because of the way the classes are set up. The more likely alternatives for the Shaman would be either the Cleric questline or the Ranger questline.