So while creating a character recently I decided to play a shaman, and then I decided to make him a necromatic shaman. While I'm sticking with the concept, I noticed something odd...
Shamans get Create Undead and Create Greater Undead on their spell list, but they have NO way to control the created undead. They do not get Control or Command Undead, nor do they have a way of channeling negative energy in order to take the feat to do so.
While I realize creating intelligent undead isn't the best decision gameplay-wise anyhow, I'm surprised they have the option but not even the basics of minion management to use it without multiclassing.
Even a Bones spirit doesn't grant negative energy channeling.
This can be mitigated by a half-elf, half-orc, or human shaman; their favored class option lets them add cleric spells to their spell list. Other races seem to be out of luck though.
Am I missing something? Is this an oversight?
If you're MAD (and I do mean M.A.D.) enough, you could grab Command Undead via the Arcane Enlightenment Hex of the Lore Spirit; fortunately, since this is a 2nd level Sorcerer/Wizard spell, it isn't totally insane to build for this.
There are ways to control an intelligent undead that are not magical compulsion, just like their are ways to control regular humanoids that are not magical compulsion.
I feel that it somewhat matches the flavor that a shaman who decided to create an intelligent undead would do so in the expectation of cooperating with that undead, rather than controlling them.
You can get negative channeling with a Shaman...
Adept Channel and worshiping a Neutral or Evil deity. Picking up Command Undead is possible at that point.
Shamans can't actually take Adept Channel. While the spirit animal functions as a familiar, it is not the summon familiar ability and thus Shamans do not quality. While I don't think it would stretch things too much for a GM to allow this, RAW it does not work.
Shamans can't actually take Adept Channel. While the spirit animal functions as a familiar, it is not the summon familiar ability and thus Shamans do not quality. While I don't think it would stretch things too much for a GM to allow this, RAW it does not work.
Pretty sure there is a FAQ that address a very similar topic, something to do with what counts as channel energy, even if the name of the ability is different, and if you could take extra channel (or similar feats that require channel energy). I am horrible at finding those FAQs, however.
Regardless:
Summon Familiar
At 2nd level, an adept can call a familiar, just as a wizard can using the arcane bond ability.
Spirit Animal
... This ability uses the same rules as the wizard’s arcane bond class feature and is treated as a familiar, except as noted below.
These abilities are pretty much the same thing. They do almost EXACTLY the same thing. If it looks like a duck, quacks likes a duck, and waddles like a duck... It might be a dragon in disguise, but otherwise... it is a duck.
There are ways to control an intelligent undead that are not magical compulsion, just like their are ways to control regular humanoids that are not magical compulsion.
I feel that it somewhat matches the flavor that a shaman who decided to create an intelligent undead would do so in the expectation of cooperating with that undead, rather than controlling them.
My own idea of Necro-Shaman was to use bodies as cannon fodder, no real support.
In Lore/character, the Shaman was giving dead soldiers/heroes one last shot at glory or in the case of enemies/criminals, the chance to right the wrongs they committed.
How good or bad this is and how much your DM will let you get away with is up to each table.
These abilities are pretty much the same thing. They do almost EXACTLY the same thing. If it looks like a duck, quacks likes a duck, and waddles like a duck... It might be a dragon in disguise, but otherwise... it is a duck.
This is why I said it would not be a stretch for a GM to allow it... but RAW they are not the same.
Examples:
An invulnerable rager does not qualify for increased damage reduction, because they don't have damage reduction class ability anymore, even though the ability that replaces it gives DR.
You have a class feature only if the class description says you have it.
Spell mastery only works for wizards. Using it for witches, alchemists, and maguses is a house rule (though one the FAQ specifically calls out as reasonable).
However, this may not exactly be cut and dried. This isn't an archetype, so this may not apply, but it seems in some cases a similar ability *does* count as the orginal. I guess it might depend on whether shaman counts as an alternate class of witch/oracle or its own separate thing? This seems to contradict the second example above anyhow so this might be worth a FAQ clarification.
Indeed. Since this isn't the rules forums, I feel no need to hash the matter out. They are similar enough (read: identical except in name) that it really should not matter. If the developers wanted to restrict this ability to "Adepts" (NPC class that actually gets the EXACT class feature), they should have put the name of the class in the prerequisite entry, like they did with Spell Mastery.