Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Well I'm going to ignore the first sentence. Basically they can easily include Shaman into D&D as WOW is getting an offical D&D source book, and since this is the second time this has happened, and the last one which used the D20 system prior to the release of 3rd edition. (It was 2nd party published by a White Wolf subsidery in partnership with TSR using the beta version of 3rd edition) basically we've been here before, and the Warcraft RPG was well designed, included offical WarCraft lore that included material in WC3 before WC3 released, and while production of WOW had already started. So yes, I expect it will be great, and a hint for the future of WOW.
when you read what is in the new WOW book...
I am sure Enhancement is covered quite well, since Elemental is basically an Wizard/Cleric and Resto is basically just a cleric with some druid, you can already build them in D&D at level 6. The added material will include the recipes to make your prefered build probably.
OP Same can be asked about a "Witch" class. It has the same problems.
How do you define a witch in the modern Era? The thing is, I just don't and let players who want to be a witch pick from the normal classes and reflavor them. To some, a witch is a healer, to others, a witch is all about curses and harm, to some it is a balance of both.
In one of my current games i am playing a witch character who is a circle of dreams Druid who is a doctor. "I am a Witch, and i am a Doctor, but I am not a WitchDoctor, he's down the hall 3 doors." Is stuff he would say.
And notice i am saying he, because Witch was not historically a gendered term, and is currently not one either, it was only in like the 50's that it was applied to women exclusively. (Though it was applied to women more often than men historically. The Malleus Maleficarum just sounds like it was written by a misogynist. Oh wait it was.)
Now take a term like "Shaman" which is even less defined, you have the same problem, and the same solution. Let the Player layer Flavor over an existing class and call themselves a Shaman.
And yes, i know it had a very particular thing in WoW, the "Heroes of Azeroth" Conversion done by fans a few years ago has a Shaman build from the WoW one. It just feels like Diet Druid.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
I guess a witch, a shaman or a druid class would be whatever the company who portrays them wants them to be. Every company has their own representation of druids, paladins, shamans, priests... There's no "correct" or "incorrect" representation of those classes.
In Warcraft, Blizzard built Shamans around their connection with the elements. My point is that I can see a Shaman in D&D whose subclasses were something like: path of the Earth; path of the Water; path ot the Air; and path of the Fire. I think they could create something appealing if they build Shamans as Blizzard did.
"
Op, is your question really "Why haven't this particular company tied mechanics to this word" and nothing more?
Cause you can ask that about so many other words that could become classes. Should we be waiting for "Friar" to be play tested?
Have you considered that maybe they haven't because they don't need to? They don't need to especially with the official World of Warcraft Collaboration that was just announced at Gen-Con, that might just have WoW shaman in it.
Here is a question back at you. Why do you think they need to officially adopt the word Shaman and put mechanics to it?
What would they get out of it? What would you get out of it?
and if i am missing the mark, then what is your question if it is not "Why hasn't Corporation laid claim to a word?"
If there is no Correct or incorrect, then why do you care if it is there at all?
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
My question was pretty simple: why haven't they added a shaman class to D&D? Several people have given an explanation, and that's alright—I honestly share some of their points. But I believe they could perfectly add that class and explore new idiosyncrasies that, in my opinion, haven't been portrayed yet, enriching the game in many ways.
Do you disagree with my perspective? That's totally fine, we don't need to think the same.
"
I think here is part of the problem - you are not exactly sure what question you are even asking. While you frame it as “why haven’t they added it?” in this post, the subsequent portion of your paragraph reveals your intention is less about getting the “simple question”’s answer and more about “but couldn’t they do it anyway?”
The simple answer has already been provided. As Wizards expressly explained whey they decided to roll back the use of “Shaman” in Magic the Gathering, they explicitly said they were concerned about the somewhat racist way the word has been applied historically and the fact they found they could create better cohesion through the use of other, better defined terms.
For your actual question of “but couldn’t they?” Sure they could. But they’re almost certainly not going to given the same two concerns that answer your simple question also apply to D&D. Even your examples of what could produce a shaman class could easily be rolled into existing classes - and things like “elemental focus” already have with things like Wildfire and Storms Druids.
My question was pretty clear since the beginning. When people explained why they think there's no Shaman class in D&D, I gave my opinion and talked about how I think a Shaman class would fit in D&D.
I disagree with your argument that says that if they created a Shaman class based on the use of elements, they'd be repeating things that have already been portrayed in other classes. Several D&D subclasses have similar idiosyncrasies (Wild Magic is one example). I don't see the problem in exploring new ways to channel that elemental magic.
That said, yeah, I totally understand why WotC doesn't want to add Shamans to D&D, I just disagree with the opinion that sees racism in how shamans are portrayed.
"
Gonna be honest OP, it sounds like you are being deliberately obtuse. The question has been answered from so many angles, and you seem to be ignoring that we are literally getting a Shaman from the WoW licensing deal that was revealed BEFORE you asked this question. The shaman you keep making comparisons to.
The one you keep holding as an exemplar.
We are getting it. And yet you keep asking.
Your simple question has been simply answered in every aspect, but it keeps being asked.
Can you see why we would be confused as to what you are actually after if you keep asking after you get every answer?
I wouldn't be surprised if it turned you were just a ChatGPT bot with instructions from Sam Altman to annoy as many people as you can without breaking any forum rules.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
So let me get this strieght, you want to know Why D&D never had a shaman class? Well they did, and depending on edition you play they still do.
TSR - 1995 Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 9507 Shaman by Kevin Hassall, edited by Steven Miller.
It's a kit class that got it's own book, usually kit classes were included in books called "the complete (insert name)". This was also before Blizzard had a Shaman anything.
Opening quote in the book: (Yes I have a copy and it's open right now.)
Shaman are considered priests (AD&D rules for XP and how you earn XP, gods and alignments and such, and what spell tables to use) instead of a pantheon they server the unseen spirit world. They use a d8 for HP. Limited spell use and do not get extra spells on wisdom. Spells are not from gods but from a patron spirit. Each spell is once a day.
they get all 9 levels of spells.. the rest of the book is various rules and such... basically works out to being just like an AD&D druid, only using spirits and no shapechange. Which is why people keep saying Cleric/Druid is how you get a D&D shaman, or pick a spirit focused subclass, as the base defintion is the spirits.
I have a personal rule where I never bother to explain something more than three times. I have learned if someone does not get it on the first three attempts, the problem is not that they are not understanding - it is that they are willingly choose to misunderstand to push their own narrative. This will thus be my third and final post.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding what I am saying. The issue is not “how shamans are portrayed” but rather the term itself has a certain racist connotation. As I already stated, the issue with the word Shaman is that it is a term from a very specific culture (Siberian/Mongolian) that was co-opted by white, Western European anthropologists and then forced onto a diverse range of non-white religious practices in a manner that erases those cultures’ independent identity and terminology, lumping them together as a single collective defined by folks not of those cultures.
That does not mean the term itself is always racist or problematic - but it is a pretty gross etymological history. Wizards of the Coast has specifically said that they find that history kind of gross and thus do not want to use the term. That is their choice to make, and there is nothing wrong with their choosing to express their speech in that manner.
You do not have to stop using the word - but surely you can recognize how reasonable folks could be a bit grossed out by this historical use. And if you can recognize how some might be grossed out, you should be able to recognize why Wizards might not want to use the term.
And if you recognize that, maybe you could recognize that your entire posting thus far basically boils down to “I don’t see a problem, therefore you should be forced to use language I want you to use, even if it makes you uncomfortable.” Surely with it spelled out this way, you could see how you are kind of trying to force your speech on another, and how that is not exactly cool?
Gonna be honest with you, I've already seen your disrespectful messages in other posts, and it always happens the same thing: you give your opinion, another person disagrees with you, and you end up trying to mock the person who doesn't think like you, accusing him or her of trolling or being a ChatGPT bot. I find your attitude so immature and pitiful. Is that how you behave in real life?
You are the only person here creating a bad situation, not me. You seem not to be able to handle a respectful discussion, and you start making a fuss as soon as someone disagrees with you.
That said, your whole post is a lie: I haven't been asking the same question over and over again, I've just been answering to other users' opinions, expressing mine in an absolutely respectful way. Calling me obtuse is an amazing projection of yours.
From now on, I'm not gonna waste my time answering anything you say, because you are actually behaving like a troll. You'd better learn that people can disagree with you, and you'd better talk to people respectfully, because all those phrases trying to mock me only prove that you are just a clown.
"
Which is why besides giving factual data, based on what TSR and WotC has done, or plan to do, I've checked out of this. Instead of responding to issues in regards to how they view toxic elements like Racism, I said "Well I'm going to ignore the first sentence." and choose to just give direct data.
You are totally twisting my point of view.
I'm saying that I understand WotC's point of view; I obviously accept it, but I don't see any racism in that term and I find that perspective a bit of a stretch. How am I forcing you to use that term saying that?
"
I see WotC's point of view on shamans. I understand that, in their fantasy game, you can more or less be a shaman roleplaying certain subclasses. That's alright, I understood that 10 posts ago. My opinion, as I said, is that they definitely could create a shaman class exploring and expanding certain features and idiosyncrasies, but they don't want to do so. That's ok! No problem at all with that, I was just adding my perspective on the matter. I'm pretty conscious that WotC is not gonna do it.
Moreover, as I said, I'm glad they will give advices in the new WoW book on how to roleplay a Warcraft shaman. I think that's amazing and I can't wait to read the book.
"
I really don't want to give a lesson on what is and is not racism. Caerwyn is correct, the origin and original use of the word Shaman in the English langague was based on Racism. Even more so than the N word is truth be told. As it was used to describe "primitive religions" of black and brown people. The commonality of those religions was ancestor worship, and worshiping elemental gods. Which is why the word evolved to mean any spiritualism based on elements and spirits. When talking about shamanism, you have to acknowledge it's racist roots, just like the word gang which is also a racist lone word from Chinese to describe Chinese railway workers in the 1800s in the USA.
I don't personally feel using Shaman is always racist, nor do I feel that way about the word gang, but I am selfaware enough to realize it is from racism, and it is racist to refer to native religions as shaman beliefs.
Personally I would rather WOW stop using that name though, as they did start with the racist use, as the original horde races that had shaman were all shown to be primative and tribal and coded as black and brown people.
Hells the first alliance race to have shaman were coded India subcontinent. It wasn't until Dwarves got access to the class did it stop being totally coded brown tribal people.
The dwarves who brought Shaman to the alliance were the Wildhammer, basically Tribal Scotish dwarves. Atleast they were white coded.
Basically yes the word Shaman like Gang was added to English due to Racism, it's use is still mostly based in racism, and WOW shaman started out just as racist as the origin of the word. You can use Shaman in a non-racist way, and WOW can pull that class out of it's racist origin, but it's not easy.
I do acknowledge the racist connotation of the word shaman and how Westerners have twisted its meaning, mixing in the pot several human culture traits that have nothing in common and have nothing to do with what a real shaman was.
That said, I think using that argument to not include the word "shaman" in a game could be dangerous. For example, if we applied that perspective to other classes, "druid" would be another word we shouldn't use, since what real Celtic druids were has nothing to do with D&D or Warcraft druids, where they are normally depicted as savage people who have a special connection with nature.
It's an interesting topic to talk and debate about.
"
It's not up to you to judge whether a term and its use are steeped in racism toward a group you don't belong to, and with a topic like this it's certainly not up to you to say that perspectives of people who aren't you are "a stretch."
It's totally fine to believe that using the term shaman to brand a fantasy game class is not racist. I respect those who think otherwise, of course. It's called freedom of speech.
"
I know I said I was not going to post again - especially since your prior response proved beyond a reasonable doubt you were not comprehending what I was saying - but this comment is unacceptable and needs to be responded to.
Wizards is using its freedom of speech to say they do not want to use the word Shaman in its games. Everyone else on this thread is repeatedly saying “the word has a bad history, Wizards has chosen to acknowledge that history and not use the word. It is okay if others want to use it, but Wizards doesn’t want to and that is okay.”
And you are responding by telling Wizards their speech is "dangerous” and they are wrong for their speech choices. It is hypocritical for you to hide behind freedom of speech when your entire thread is trying to force Wizards to abandon their honest exercise of freedom of speech and adopt a word you want them to use.
Maybe now you’ll get it? If you honestly care about freedom of speech, you’ll respect Wizards’ speech and let them use or not use whatever words they wish.
Mage Hand Press did a good job w/"Witch" in their version, for the record, focusing on magic as a curse that isn't always your fault, expanding the concepts of hexes & familiars, turning things like a cackle into more than just a cliche sound, & overtly saying that Witches are not evil by design, & that warlocks aren't male witches(nice nod to the Wicca stance on the word "Warlock"!)
So it IS possible to make a non-racist Shaman based on the IRL version focusing on spiritual healing through induced trance:it's just that the WoW version has NEVER been that, & neither has DND or M:TG's. And it would take a considerately large amount of effort to do it right, albeit past the point of RoI.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.