Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

There's currently a forum problem with avatars not showing in reactions.
Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Is shaman mage weak?

1246

Comments

  • Durmir46Durmir46 Member Posts: 110
    Yes
    F/I does not play like half an arcane caster. Neither does a bard. Sorcerer is key to have a proper arcane caster.

    Besides, even if the sorcerer were not key, it would still be better than the shaman. Chaos is not really a problem, you can see shorties with dispel magic for instance. Chaos is quite rare and 4 possible dispellers will cover it, do not worry ;)
    And the C/R can cast chaotic command, just in case. So the shaman would not bring anything.

    In your suggestion, how would the shaman improve the team in comparison to the sorcerer?

    And yes, your team would fare decently, but any team would anyway, and it's not the point.

  • Rik_KirtaniyaRik_Kirtaniya Member Posts: 1,201
    No
    Durmir46 said:

    In your suggestion, how would the shaman improve the team in comparison to the sorcerer?

    By giving you access to Nature's Beauty and Insect Plague. ;)

    Though there are so many other advantages as well of having a spontaneous divine caster, which should be obvious.

    You can say that you don't want it, and of course you can "fare decently" without it. Any team would anyway, as you say. But that's why Druids and Shamans are better. ;)

  • Durmir46Durmir46 Member Posts: 110
    Yes
    I know what shaman brings, I also know what a sorcerer brings.
    I already have a full divine caster in the team (not half, rangers can cast too, although here the multi is to have a toon that can also efficiently melee). Divine spells are good at buffing, but I need only 1. Why having 2?
    On the other hand, I need a dedicated arcane caster. I could list all the spells that are worth more than yours (less situational and more powerful), but that's too many... Even nature's beauty, that you get so late in the game, I have glitterdust at lvl2! And my sorcerer gives me sleep, skull traps, fireballs, fantastic buffs, contigencies and triggers, abu-dalzim, greater malison + finger of death, time stop (hands down single best spell in the entire game), improved alacrity, and so, so much more.... And do not get me started on equipment access! Staff of the Magi, robe of vecna, wands, etc.

    How is bringing a shaman making up for the loss of everything above? Multis and bards do not have the same spell progression and much fewer spells a day, plus F/I and bards are not played the same, you will not want to use the same spells with them! Typically F/I you buff and you butcher, if you want a caster, pick a mage or a sorcerer, not a F/I...

    IP is not worth missing out that much, please let's keep reasonable...

  • Artemius_IArtemius_I Member Posts: 2,607
    edited August 7
    Neverused said:

    Here’s another team that I think would work fairly decently with a shaman:
    Shaman
    Mage/Cleric
    Cavalier
    Bounty Hunter
    Wizard Slayer
    Enchanter

    The shaman really, really wants a Skald, since summoned creatures benefit from bard songs. It's why Voghiln and M'Khiin work great together in SoD :)

    Again, whatever the druid spellbook may be lacking, Nature's Beauty is an auto-win against anything that isn't immune to blind and doesn't have a ton of magic resistance. If a creature is blinded their AI flat out won't work so they're pretty much useless, and in the vanilla game there's very few ways to remove blind outside of a self-cast Dispel Magic. So with a druid or shaman your threats pretty much get narrowed down to things with a ton of magic resistance (which can be lowered with mage support) and blind-immune creatures (which are mostly undead, even creatures with MINHP1 aren't always immune to blind). I'm not sure how anyone can argue that isn't insanely valuable.

  • Durmir46Durmir46 Member Posts: 110
    Yes

    Neverused said:

    Here’s another team that I think would work fairly decently with a shaman:
    Shaman
    Mage/Cleric
    Cavalier
    Bounty Hunter
    Wizard Slayer
    Enchanter

    The shaman really, really wants a Skald, since summoned creatures benefit from bard songs. It's why Voghiln and M'Khiin work great together in SoD :)

    Again, whatever the druid spellbook may be lacking, Nature's Beauty is an auto-win against anything that isn't immune to blind and doesn't have a ton of magic resistance. So with a druid or shaman your threats pretty much get narrowed down to things with a ton of magic resistance (which can be lowered with mage support) and blind-immune creatures (which are mostly undead, even creatures with MINHP1 aren't always immune to blind). I'm not sure how anyone can argue that isn't insanely valuable.
    If you like blindness so much, why not play a sorcerer? You get blindness as soon as you start, and glitterdust at lvl2, more and better later. Nature's beauty is an end-game spell, why wait so long?!?

  • Rik_KirtaniyaRik_Kirtaniya Member Posts: 1,201
    No
    Durmir46 said:

    Neverused said:

    Here’s another team that I think would work fairly decently with a shaman:
    Shaman
    Mage/Cleric
    Cavalier
    Bounty Hunter
    Wizard Slayer
    Enchanter

    The shaman really, really wants a Skald, since summoned creatures benefit from bard songs. It's why Voghiln and M'Khiin work great together in SoD :)

    Again, whatever the druid spellbook may be lacking, Nature's Beauty is an auto-win against anything that isn't immune to blind and doesn't have a ton of magic resistance. So with a druid or shaman your threats pretty much get narrowed down to things with a ton of magic resistance (which can be lowered with mage support) and blind-immune creatures (which are mostly undead, even creatures with MINHP1 aren't always immune to blind). I'm not sure how anyone can argue that isn't insanely valuable.
    If you like blindness so much, why not play a sorcerer? You get blindness as soon as you start, and glitterdust at lvl2, more and better later. Nature's beauty is an end-game spell, why wait so long?!?
    Because you can easily negate Blindness and Glitterdust by a simple save. You can't do so against Nature's Beauty.

  • Durmir46Durmir46 Member Posts: 110
    Yes
    Is it worth being almost at melee range with a very squishy toon and very long casting time? And worth using a lvl7 spell slot (that includes HLAs) instead of a lvl2 mage one? Just to remove the *possibility* of save? Guys...

  • Artemius_IArtemius_I Member Posts: 2,607
    edited August 7
    Durmir46 said:

    If you like blindness so much, why not play a sorcerer? You get blindness as soon as you start, and glitterdust at lvl2, more and better later. Nature's beauty is an end-game spell, why wait so long?!?

    Nature's Beauty has:
    • No saving throw
    • No targeting required
    • AoE
    • Spell level 7, which means it goes through Globe of Invulnerability and the like
    The only thing arcane casters has that compares is Power Word: Blind, which is single-target. The druid/shaman gets their first 7th level at 1.5M experience. That's quite far in, but not so late that you won't get enough use for it to be worth it. Mages won't get Power Word: Blind until 2.25M experience at level 16, a whole 750k experience later. And that's just one thing they do. They also get one of the best summoning spells, Summon Fire Elemental, at a mere 200,000 experience. Shamans get a little shafted here since they gain their first 6th level spell at 750,000 experience, but it's still significantly more useful than anything a mage can summon at the same experience (6th level mage spells).

    I play with druids a lot and they aren't just passable, they legitimately make the game easier. And they do it with just a small handful of spells. I have had Jaheira clear out the Guarded Compound practically alone during Chapter 2 while none of my other party members had the capability to at the same experience level.
    Durmir46 said:

    Is it worth being almost at melee range with a very squishy toon and very long casting time? And worth using a lvl7 spell slot (that includes HLAs) instead of a lvl2 mage one? Just to remove the *possibility* of save? Guys...

    I'm sorry, but what? A casting time of 6 is long? Have you not experienced how frequently enemies make their saves even during mid-game SoA? There is a reason why most spells without at least a -2 penalty to save are considered worthless at a certain point.

  • Rik_KirtaniyaRik_Kirtaniya Member Posts: 1,201
    edited August 7
    No
    Arcanjo said:

    @Rik_Kirtaniya
    Thanks, I read your message, as soon as I can get my doubts about the choice of spells and why they are chosen in the Shaman, thank you, I think I'm having trouble just picking up wrong spells and no use in BG1. And I do not even know how to position myself, now that you've talked about the Nymphs I did not even get them. And then to other mistakes. :'( :'( :'(

    @Arcanjo I'd suggest you start by getting proficiency points in daggers and axes. Daggers so that you can use Throwing Daggers (which have 2 APR and also add your STR bonus) and because you can take Dagger of the Venom, which is probably the best weapon in BGEE. You will also get a nice returning throwing axe +2 in chapter 6, which can be used as both a melee and ranged weapon. Later on, take darts (for darts of stunning and wounding) and shortbows (Protector of the Dryads and Arrows of Dispelling). In BG2, take either shortbows or slings and quarterstaves, since there are lots of very nice staves, and there's the Tuigan Bow (3 APR) and the Sling of Everard (which can hit anything in the game). Later on you can take clubs and spears to increase your arsenal.

    Always equip Buckley's Buckler and you can get 20 CON, which will give you gradual regeneration. There are many decent studded leather armours, though later on in BG2, Barkskin and Iron Skins will make up for a solid defence. Also, you can use Helmets and in BG2, there are so many great helmets you can use. Also, in BG2, you can use Reflection Shield and Aeger's Hide from the beginning, which are great.

    As for spells, there's already one thread that explains it in detail and you may refer to that. In BG, I'd take these spells in the given order:

    Level 1: Entangle, Cure Light Wounds, Doom, Bless, Armour of Faith

    Level 2: Charm Person/Mammal, Slow Poison, Resist Fire/Cold, Flame Blade (take Barkskin later in BG2)

    Level 3: Call Lightning, Dispel Magic, Summon Insects

    Level 4: Call Woodland Beings, Defensive Harmony

    That pretty much covers what you get in BG.

    Don't expect your low level spirits to kill Drizzt outright, because it's not an easy job to kill him. These low level spirits are ideally used against non-boss mobs, allowing you to conserve your valuable spells. Later on, from level 12 and then 18 (that needs only 3 million XP), your spirits become formidable opponents, and can hit almost anything in the game due to their +4 weapons. So later on, you'll enjoy dancing more than you do now, and overwhelm the enemy with a horde of spirit minions.

    Against Drizzt, you should first use Call Woodland Beings before you meet him, and then use Summon Insects, Call Lightning, Entangle and Spirit Fire. Also, don't kill the gnolls at first, but let them engage Drizzt and keep his attention as long as they can. Let your Nymph cast Confusion and Hold Monster (and then the other spells which she has), and then attack Drizzt from afar using Darts of Stunning/Wounding and enchanted Arrows. If he gets paralyzed, quickly stab him as many times you can with Dagger of Venom. This should finish him off. (Do not use your Spirit summons here.)

    By the way, personally, I don't appreciate the idea of killing Drizzt at all. It's such an evil desire. Alas, but still people like to kill someone like him! :'(

  • Durmir46Durmir46 Member Posts: 110
    Yes
    Ok, can we please focus back? Pick 1 point and ignoring the rest is not going to answer our question.

    Please explain *objectively* why if I remove my sorcerer and replace him with a shaman the game will be made easier?

    It is ok to mention a couple of spells you like from the shaman, but please in your answer consider the loss of the sorcerer, we are not talking about adding a shaman, but about replacing a sorcerer with one.
    Maybe you really, really want to use lvl7 spell slots for Nature's beauty, and blindness really makes the game easier for you, but please consider what you lose on the other hand (the only dedicated arcane caster of the team btw).

    And remember: I am not saying you should not play shaman. I like playing druids too, they are fun and they have a unique flavor. All I am saying: they do not help as much as most other classes, which is my definition of "weak". Stop defending the shaman, instead sell it to me. Show me how much better my team will be with it instead of my sorcerer (or any other toon).

  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 3,748
    No
    Durmir46 said:

    That is cute and all, but nothing here answers the key points.

    So I will reformulate:

    Imagine the following team:
    Dwarven Defender
    Fighter/Illusionist
    Fighter/Thief
    Sorcerer
    Cleric/Ranger
    Skald

    If I wanted a druid (or a shaman), who should I replace in my team so that the newly formed team with my druid makes me feel like the game is easier and my team more "performant"? More importantly: why (objectively and taking into account an entire playthrough)?
    Feel free to specify, if necessary, a particular kit (or shaman). That includes dual/multi too.

    @Durmir46 if this were my party a Shaman would definitely be more valuable than the Dwarven Defender. The latter is great in defense, but less so in attack - and the F/I provides enough defense for the above party anyway. If I were keeping the DD for some reason, a Shaman might also be preferable to the Skald (and I wouldn't have a C/R at all - though if you've unlocked his druid abilities there's an arguable case for it).

    Incidentally, you've said on multiple occasions in this thread what a great spell glitterdust is. Do you have a modded version of that (for instance ruling out a saving throw)? If not, I don't understand why you think it's so good - for a single target blind is normally a better option and for crowd control web is much more effective (though admittedly that requires more care in using).

  • Durmir46Durmir46 Member Posts: 110
    Yes
    Grond0 said:

    Durmir46 said:

    That is cute and all, but nothing here answers the key points.

    So I will reformulate:

    Imagine the following team:
    Dwarven Defender
    Fighter/Illusionist
    Fighter/Thief
    Sorcerer
    Cleric/Ranger
    Skald

    If I wanted a druid (or a shaman), who should I replace in my team so that the newly formed team with my druid makes me feel like the game is easier and my team more "performant"? More importantly: why (objectively and taking into account an entire playthrough)?
    Feel free to specify, if necessary, a particular kit (or shaman). That includes dual/multi too.

    @Durmir46 if this were my party a Shaman would definitely be more valuable than the Dwarven Defender. The latter is great in defense, but less so in attack - and the F/I provides enough defense for the above party anyway. If I were keeping the DD for some reason, a Shaman might also be preferable to the Skald (and I wouldn't have a C/R at all - though if you've unlocked his druid abilities there's an arguable case for it).

    Incidentally, you've said on multiple occasions in this thread what a great spell glitterdust is. Do you have a modded version of that (for instance ruling out a saving throw)? If not, I don't understand why you think it's so good - for a single target blind is normally a better option and for crowd control web is much more effective (though admittedly that requires more care in using).
    Why would the shaman make my team better than the dwarven defender? It's still pretty good in offense btw and it does not require spells to keep tanking forever (with DoE it is like having an invincible character in the team).

    As for the skald, as a reminder, just leaving him on the song provides 2 bonus to AC, THAC0 and damage until lvl15, 4 bonus afterwards with immunity to fear and at lvl 20 also immunity to stun and confusion (and oh boy the HLA version), TO THE ENTIRE TEAM. Imagine in BG1 how these bonuses are monstruous, and then in SoA post lvl15, and then the HLA... Not sure where the shaman would outperform this. It would actually make the DD fantastic, the F/I does not need it but it would make ot even more terrifying, the C/R can definitely use it to make it an incredible fighter who can cast divine spells, and the F/T would be as good a fighter than a full dedicated fighter, but with thief perks (including traps and backstab). Basically it is like a +3-5 fighter levels to everyone and nice immunities (including to chaos that was mentioned earlier). Then again, you can also cast support spells, use wands and even fight a few rounds each turn without breaking the song. How would the shaman do better?


    I play vanilla Steam. Glitterdust and sleep usually get me through the entire BG1. Glitterdust is still good chapter 2 and 3 of SoA. Blinds easily half of ennemies, which technically makes fights twice as easy. With a dedicated arcane spellcaster, enemy saving throws work a lot less often.

    I admit the C/R is less impressive, but you may want some divine spells, although it is clearly not needed (however protection from evil should be bread and butter of any reasonably difficult fight preparation, with defensive harmony to stack with the skald), and with the skald it becomes a terrific fighter.

  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 3,748
    No
    Durmir46 said:

    Why would the shaman make my team better than the dwarven defender? It's still pretty good in offense btw and it does not require spells to keep tanking forever (with DoE it is like having an invincible character in the team).

    The shaman adds extra options - for instance inexhaustible summons and detect illusion as well as high level druid spells for trickier encounters. If you maintain the skald and just drop the DD the shaman spirits will probably do more damage than the DD anyway.

    As for the skald, as a reminder, just leaving him on the song provides 2 bonus to AC, THAC0 and damage until lvl15, 4 bonus afterwards with immunity to fear and at lvl 20 also immunity to stun and confusion (and oh boy the HLA version), TO THE ENTIRE TEAM. Imagine in BG1 how these bonuses are monstruous, and then in SoA post lvl15, and then the HLA... Not sure where the shaman would outperform this. It would actually make the DD fantastic, the F/I does not need it but it would make ot even more terrifying, the C/R can definitely use it to make it an incredible fighter who can cast divine spells, and the F/T would be as good a fighter than a full dedicated fighter, but with thief perks (including traps and backstab). Basically it is like a +3-5 fighter levels to everyone and nice immunities (including to chaos that was mentioned earlier). Then again, you can also cast support spells, use wands and even fight a few rounds each turn without breaking the song. How would the shaman do better?
    Swapping the shaman for the skald was based on the presumption of keeping the DD and having limited use of summons. I'm also influenced by the fact that the bard song had such a poor area of effect in v2.3 (I don't think I've played one in BG2 since v2.5 came out, so it's possible that's been addressed).

    I admit the C/R is less impressive, but you may want some divine spells, although it is clearly not needed (however protection from evil should be bread and butter of any reasonably difficult fight preparation, with defensive harmony to stack with the skald), and with the skald it becomes a terrific fighter.
    I like the idea of some sort of cleric, but a single-class one gives you far more spell power. If you really want extra fighting abilities a dwarf fighter/cleric is a better option.

  • Rik_KirtaniyaRik_Kirtaniya Member Posts: 1,201
    No
    I think we completely forgot to mention Shaman HLAs as well. Spirit Form (50% Physical Resistance + Improved Invisibilty), FAVOURED OF THE SPIRITS (Besides immunity to death magic, it also protects you against Petrification effects and IMPRISONMENT!!! And that is for one full hour, much longer than a mage's Spell Immunity or a Berserker's rage. The auto-heal effect is also nice. All in one.), and Ethereal Retribution are the exclusive ones. The ability to spam multiple Implosions and Storm of Vengeance at will is also a powerful and exclusive ability. There's also the Elemental Summoning HLA which only Druids and Shamans get. Also, don't forget that the shaman gets Maze right when they get level 7 spells (1.5M XP), while mages have to wait till when they get level 8 spells (2.25 M XP). And I can't speak enough about the infinite level 18 spirit summons (5 of them at a time). They are always bound to overwhelm the enemy. B)

  • Durmir46Durmir46 Member Posts: 110
    edited August 7
    Yes
    Ok, I must admit in the team I presented the DD can be hard to defend and probably the less "broken" one.
    This is precisely because the skald and buffs from the C/R would already make the team nigh immortal. So I would say you are correct.

    However the DD deals more damage than shaman summons. Also, axe of the unyielding and DoE would make the DD not only unkillable, but also a real killing machine. You do not need the DD for a similar effect, however, so your point of removing him still stands.

    However, replacing him with a shaman would not improve overall the team. The flexibility you talk about is already provided by the C/R and the very limited options given by the shaman wound not make up for the loss of an invicible killer machine, even if said machine is not optimal in the context of the team I presented. The DD does not need rest, does not need preparation, and requires little support (just a breach or two now and then). The shaman requires all of them, and again the small gains do not justify it. Except of course if there is more to it than IP and nature's beauty.
    The DD nullifies the need for summons entirely, it tanks infinitely more and deals much more damage. Take a lvl15 DD with a +3 axe and a +3 flail (me loves flails), 18/9x str. That's 53 damage per turn, at -1 / 3 base THAC0. No summon can beat that. The utility of having such a damage dealer who is totally immortal is higher I belive to the one of having a shaman, who barely deals any damage, is very squishy and loses most of its spell usefulness through the already there C/R. So yes, he's not that great in this particular team and could be replaced. Just not by a shaman who would be even less useful.


    Now considering the C/R, tbh whenever possible, multi into ranger is superior to fighter. It takes more xp, but you get the goodies of the ranger (stealth, spell casting etc.). The rest is pretty much the same. Spells alone justify the slower progression. It makes C/R almost as good a divine spellcaster than a plain full cleric, but it gives great fighter abilities. The C/R is not good defensively, but it's a beast offensively, and the additional spells from the ranger make a whole world of difference as a cleric.

  • BorekBorek Member Posts: 473
    No
    There's not really much point in talking about where a shaman fits into a 6 custom Character party, especially in the context of the thread's question, which is simply is the Shaman Weak.

    Obviously it's nearer the bottom of the performance pack than the top, but it's kinda a moot point as it's still perfectly possible to play it even solo.

    @Durmir46 i wouldn't run that party you described anyway, personally i consider it massively sub-optimal for many reasons, but then again i play my way with my mods and it's probably going to be completely different than yours.

    Imagine the following team:
    Dwarven Defender - Pointless, rather run a Cavaliar/Undead Hunter for Carsomyr + extra turn undead/utility or run a kit you can dual class later with once the magic users start trivializing encounters.
    Fighter/Illusionist - No skull trap, no ADHW, won't get high level mage spells until very late.
    Fighter/Thief - not a fan of multi class FT, dual gives you kit options, in a 6 man grp you'll have to wait for HLA's too which would normally be the big advantage, but either way i wouldn't play a FT in a group when i can have a T>M dual instead.
    Sorcerer - in a full party i wouldn't take a sorcerer, you only need 1 Mage.
    Cleric/Ranger - OK combo but unless you turn the druid spells back on via mods/edits they are not that amazing.
    Skald - Just don't rate bards myself, T>M dual can basically do it all better except sing and i'll take a Planetar over a HLA song any day of the week.

    I would quite happily switch out the Skald, DD, FI, FT or CR for a Shaman given your proposed party, Sorcerer also but that would need a shuffle around of other classes, notably the T>M dual.

    An optimal team for me using a Shaman would be:
    Shaman Bhaalspawn
    Nalia/Imoen
    Korgan

    3 person party means they all level up twice as fast, you have a tank that basically never fails a save and can become immune to everything so often it's crazy, just enough thievery to deal with traps and locks, plus allow some additional weapons to be used, effectively a single class mage to win the game with. Shaman can cover what is lacking and has the detect illusion skill that you would otherwise be lacking, plus access to higher APR ranged options so that spell casting/dancing isn't always needed, really can't beat Acid Arrows via Tuigan for mage encounters.

  • Durmir46Durmir46 Member Posts: 110
    Yes
    I do not agree with a lot of what you are saying, but most of it belongs to another thread (plus, if you use mods, it will necessarily alter the topic here, with a single mod I guess you could transform the shaman into an absolute beast), and I would happily discuss there. And you do not explain why a shaman would make the team better than any of those you would remove. If you explained why a shaman would fare better in each case, I will gladly reply to the corresponding criticism.

    For the time being, I agree we should discuss this while keeping in mind the original question: is the shaman weak? If this question refers to the relative efficiency of all classes, then I take you agree with me shamans are weak:
    Borek said:



    Obviously it's nearer the bottom of the performance pack than the top, but it's kinda a moot point as it's still perfectly possible to play it even solo.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 7,045
    No
    @Durmir46 "Please explain *objectively* why if I remove my sorcerer and replace him with a shaman the game will be made easier?"

    Mulitple people have, for two full pages now. Plugging your ears and shouting, "no your wrong" is not a reutation in any way. Maybe you should try explain how exactly your mage is going to beat a druid?

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 7,045
    No
    @Durmir46 "Please explain *objectively* why if I remove my sorcerer and replace him with a shaman the game will be made easier?"

    Multiple people have. For two pages now. Plugging your ears and shouting, "No thats false!" While failing to provide any explanation as to HOW is not a refutattion of any sort.

  • BorekBorek Member Posts: 473
    No
    Durmir46 said:

    I do not agree with a lot of what you are saying, but most of it belongs to another thread (plus, if you use mods, it will necessarily alter the topic here, with a single mod I guess you could transform the shaman into an absolute beast), and I would happily discuss there. And you do not explain why a shaman would make the team better than any of those you would remove. If you explained why a shaman would fare better in each case, I will gladly reply to the corresponding criticism.

    For the time being, I agree we should discuss this while keeping in mind the original question: is the shaman weak? If this question refers to the relative efficiency of all classes, then I take you agree with me shamans are weak:

    Borek said:



    Obviously it's nearer the bottom of the performance pack than the top, but it's kinda a moot point as it's still perfectly possible to play it even solo.

    I don't agree it's weak, i voted No as should be able to be seen, i merely said it's in the lower half of the performance tables, but that factors in every class/kit/combo, as a rule single class kits that cannot be dualed or multi'd will ALWAYS fall behind in direct comparison.

    I could quite easily explain why a shaman enhances your team, but instead i chose to propose a 3 person team using NPC's rather than custom chars, that basically does what your team does with more efficiency, less overlapping abilities and will level more than twice as quickly. Why would i want a DD, FI AND a CR in the same party? The DD will be way, way higher level than the other 2, FI will take a lot of pre-buffing which you'll soon learn to hate since the DD and CR will probably have killed everything before it's even buffed up. It's fine if your only fighter is the FI, then you can use it as an invulnerable tank via magical protections, but you have a DD and CR, 1 with high physical damage resistance and 1 with slightly less.

    Drop the FI for a Shaman, you gain detect Illusions, single class druid spells, decent ranged options, summons plus it levels faster. FI can't cast necromancy so the 2 best damaging mage spells are off the table anyway, i'd say Insect Plague ALONE makes the shaman better than a FI.

    Same for CR, you lose weakish turn undead (level slower as a multi), ability to specialize in weapons, but gain all the druid spells, plus summons, easy switch for me.

    I'd drop the DD since it's not able to be dual-classed by default, again easy switch, shaman adds the usual goodness, your team would have a FI, FT and a CR, all of which can act as a tank, just with less damage mitigation, shaman brings in powerful healing, summons, buffs and utility that make it way more useful to the team that the DD.

    I could go in, but i hope you get my point, Shaman is a GREAT team class.

  • Durmir46Durmir46 Member Posts: 110
    edited August 7
    Yes
    @Borek If you play the FI as an arcane caster, then I see your point. But if what you want is an arcane caster, get a pure arcane caster. The FI is a character you self-buff and throw into battle for insane damage and immortality. It is often considered the most overpowered character in the entire game. If you use him to cast ADHW or skull trap, then you are missing the point of the FI. Nothing (with arguably the exception of pure caster towards the end of the game, with access to Time Stop + Improved Alacrity + Robe of Vecna) can replace the pure destruction that he brings. He has arguably a better detect illusion than the shaman, because true sight is better used on a frontliner. The shaman is too squishy to be allowed anywhere close to the frontline, at least not until aggro has been captured by the tanks. Use true sight in your pack of pre-battle buffs and you get a much, much better detect illusion. FI still has the best ranged weapon in the game, with specialisation: throwing daggers. And saying IP is better than everything the FI is bringing is absurd: one spell, no matter how good it is (and if IP is good, it is not THAT good) can replace the tornado of sheer chaos a FI brings.

    Turn undead is never good enough to be an argument, and its use is incredibly situational. However the CR is a much, much, much better fighter than the shaman: better AC, better THAC0, access to better weapons and armors, HLAs, etc. Plus, access to the cleric buffs in particular makes it an even better fighter. And the loss of Protection from Evil and all the cleric goodies is just too horrible to pass entirely in a team. In other words: CR is a better fighter AND a better supporter.

    Healing spells are 100% useless in SoA and ToB, with all these potions littered everywhere, and the CR can provide if you really need them, although again spell slots are better used with something else. DD renders summons absolutely useless. And again, if you have a CR, then you lose most of the benefits the shaman would bring, at the expense of another immortal toon with higher damage.


    @ThacoBell dude, that is totally uncalled for. I have answered every single relevant point so far, I can't say this was done both ways.



    Overall, I can see there are some major shaman groupies in the discussion, and it's fine. To be honest, my personal favourite class to play is the assassin, and frankly it is hardly an overpowered class. I just love the gameplay and the flavor. With loads of RP possibilities and just plain fun to have. I can totally understand if some people really want to believe the shaman is fantastic, because they love playing one. If the question of the thread was "is the shaman fun to play", then you'd have me backing you up anytime, guys. But depending on the definition of "weak" you use, the shaman may very well end in this category. It does not make it any less fun and interesting to play. It is a game, and what matters in the end is that you are having fun with the game. If that involves playing shaman, then by all means go and play a shaman. You will finish the game and might even find it easy. But please stop saying a shaman is better than a sorcerer or even in general that shamans perform in top tiers. This is simply not true.

    So let us all agree to disagree, unless you have something new to bring that will change our assessment here and that has the potential to make me change my mind. Because the discussion is going in circle here. I will not convince you, obviously, and you will not convince me. Let's all have a pint together at the Friendly Arm Inn!

  • BorekBorek Member Posts: 473
    No
    You make some decent points, but i will add that you shouldn't compare the FI to the Shaman directly, i was stating it was an improvement over the FI in that set up, because you already have 1x pure fighter and 2x Multiclass fighters, plus a Sorcerer. In that group yes a shaman adds more because a lot the FI can do can be done by someone else, better. Shaman on the other hand brings skills lacking from the rest.

    I would never suggest a Shaman is better than a FI in a direct comparison, just getting access to 2 classes HLA's is a huge deal.

  • chimaerachimaera Member Posts: 639
    edited August 7
    Yes
    Is druidic magic useful? Having run a totemic druid & party through the scs-land - very useful. For me the issue with the shaman however is not the druidic magic or summons, it's that the druids do it better.

    The spirit animals are summoned instantly, can be controlled by the player and have a nice set of abilities. The dance summon routine feels unwieldy and unnecessary time consuming, by comparison. The avenger bonus spells make up for the biggest weakness of the druidic spellbook in BG (the dreaded level 2). Considering that with high wisdom, a druid eventually gets more slots than a shaman castings, they are better spellcasters. And while shamans get better weapon choices, with their thaco a shapeshifter is going to be better at combat, nevermind the dual- or multiclassed f/d.

    And that is what it comes down too - I'd rather have a character that excels at one thing, then a character that attempts to do it all, but ends up mediocre at everything.

  • RaduzielRaduziel Member Posts: 3,208
    No
    Shamans/Druid have:

    * Two of the three best summons in the game (Fire Elemental, Nymph - the third one would be Mordenkainen's Sword).

    * The best disabler spell through the whole saga (Nature's Beauty) and some other disables that works as damage dealers too (Creeping Doom, Summon Insects, Dolorous Decay and Insect Plague).

    * Decent HP and Thac0

    * For Shaman only: you may cast a Raise Dead-ish spell and is a spontaneous caster.

    * For Druid only: a quick level progression through most of the saga.

    I really can't understand how this thread became so big.

  • chimaerachimaera Member Posts: 639
    Yes
    Raduziel said:



    * The best disabler spell through the whole saga (Nature's Beauty) and some other disables that works as damage dealers too (Creeping Doom, Summon Insects, Dolorous Decay and Insect Plague).

    Well, I have tried using nature's beauty (both with a druid and with a r/c in BGT) and haven't found it all that useful. It seems to have a very small radius, and between the long casting time & enemies moving around, it was more miss than hit.

  • chimaerachimaera Member Posts: 639
    Yes
    @kjeron
    As usual, to the rescue! Thank you, this explains much :smile:

  • RaduzielRaduziel Member Posts: 3,208
    No
    chimaera said:

    Raduziel said:



    * The best disabler spell through the whole saga (Nature's Beauty) and some other disables that works as damage dealers too (Creeping Doom, Summon Insects, Dolorous Decay and Insect Plague).

    Well, I have tried using nature's beauty (both with a druid and with a r/c in BGT) and haven't found it all that useful. It seems to have a very small radius, and between the long casting time & enemies moving around, it was more miss than hit.
    Step 1: Pixie Dust

    Step 2: Nature's Beauty

    Profit.

  • chimaerachimaera Member Posts: 639
    Yes
    Raduziel said:

    chimaera said:

    Raduziel said:



    * The best disabler spell through the whole saga (Nature's Beauty) and some other disables that works as damage dealers too (Creeping Doom, Summon Insects, Dolorous Decay and Insect Plague).

    Well, I have tried using nature's beauty (both with a druid and with a r/c in BGT) and haven't found it all that useful. It seems to have a very small radius, and between the long casting time & enemies moving around, it was more miss than hit.
    Step 1: Pixie Dust

    Step 2: Nature's Beauty

    Profit.
    Useless in scs.

Sign In or Register to comment.