Page 2 of 2
Re: [3rd Edition] Archer and Wizard Optimization help
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:56 am
by Mataxes
No, Shaman is not closer to D&D wizard. Don't listen to him.
Re: [3rd Edition] Archer and Wizard Optimization help
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:05 pm
by Roth
A Shaman is closer to what he desires then a straight ED Wizard.
Re: [3rd Edition] Archer and Wizard Optimization help
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:11 pm
by Telarus_KSC
Nah, a Human Wizard would probably work out much better. The down-side with Shamans is that you have to have a physical Matrix Object for every spell you know and can only cast the ones you are actively touching.
Re: [3rd Edition] Archer and Wizard Optimization help
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:32 am
by Marceli
Re: [3rd Edition] Archer and Wizard Optimization help
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:41 pm
by Kasbak
Sorry, but I've got to agree with Mataxes on this one. D&D wizards may have slightly more variety to their spell lists than Earthdawn Wizards, but that also neglects that Earthdawn Wizards get Talents. Once you factor those in, it really boils down to flavor, and the Shaman does not fit the same flavor as the D&D wizard. Certain clerics maybe, druids definitely, but not wizards.
Re: [3rd Edition] Archer and Wizard Optimization help
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:24 pm
by Roth
D&D wizards may have slightly more variety to their spell lists than Earthdawn Wizards?
That is an understatement...
Earthdawn spellcasters versus D&D spellcasters. Earthdawn are more akin to D&D specialist casters, i.e. Transmuter, Evoker, Illusionist, Necromancer, etc.
Shamans do not have their 'own school'. Their spells are pulled from the others.
Shamans ability to be 'the Batman Wizard' is better than the Wizard's ability to be 'the Batman Wizard'.
Other things the OP needs to tell us:
Stats
Magic items
Without this information, quality advice about Archer DPR and Wizard CC isn't quality.