That seems pretty reasonable to me, but the post above from Henry seems to indicate that the Ehtzara (who have always been shaman) are a type of sorcerer. That seems really odd to me though, since the Ehtzara are pretty open and obvious in the Hinterlands, and thus apparently are not being hunted by the sorcerer king. If they are a type of sorcerer, that seems problematic to me thematically.

Sorcerers act openly in Nishanpur too, and they are reasonably 'safe' from Harvesters. I don't think there has been anything said in canon that Ehtzara are NOT hunted.

Yes, but a big deal has been made about why sorcerers can act openly in Nishanpur. It is a well explained event. I agree that I haven't seen anything saying explicitly that Ehtzara are not hunted, but it was clear in the last campaign that they were not, since back then shaman were classified as divine casters. It's been one of the unclear things in the new system that suddenly they may be of interest to the sorcerer king, but it is my understanding that shaman are very low on his interest list. (but still on the list, right above sorcerer-priest) Additionally, there is the issue of the Ehtzara operating openly in the Hinterlands when that is one of the nearest nations and common ports for the black fleet, and there has been no listed cooperation between the Ehtzara and the Sanctorum, something you would think would be more likely if they shared a common enemy.

All in all, the change of Ehtzara from one gaming system to the next to the next from divine to arcane (shaman) to arcane (sorcerer) is very complicated. To make them sorcerers (the most sought after party for the sorcerer king) in 5e really changes the dynamics from one extreme to the other. If they are classified as warlocks, and the sorcerer king has little to no interest in warlocks, than that doesn't really change things from the current status.

Honestly, I like shaman as its own class, and really look forward to a 5e players guide for the campaign, something that is really desperately needed if they are going to try to operate a 5e campaign. There are so many things that need to be handled

- domains for specific gods, ideally with new domains
- shamans
- honestly a clear specialty for knights and centurians in the fighter class would be best
- racial stuff - dwarves, elorii, and ssressen
- sex-linked requirements
- what types of characters are hunted by harvesters
- psionics

I can't see actually having a competent transition to 5e without a players guide that is a stand alone book like it was in the last campaign. Shaman are really a teeny-tiniest tip of the iceberg.

I'm no one official, but this is my take:

I think of Shamanism (A:RPG) = Warlock (5th) is a good fit, and much better than any other option I can see.

It has been explained to me that most Ehtzara are Shamans. But some are also "wizards" and a few may have very limited, unique, or no spell casting abilities at all. Some Ehtzara further specialize and may gain additional abilities (such as the members of the Cult of the Jackel who shape change into jackel).

It would seem to me that if Shamans are being recast as Warlocks, then the Ehtzara should too...or that the Ehtzara should be option for Warlocks as well as Sorcerers.

Just my 2 cents.

Again, I'm nobody official but here's my take (not having played Arcanis under 3.x).

Shaman = Druid (second choice would be Sorcerer). Thematically, Shaman could work as Warlock but Warlock is hugely limited on casting in 5e. Mechanically (but not thematically), about the only ones I see as working as Warlocks under 5e are the newly limited casters (female Illiir, male Saluwe, and male Ss'ressen Templars).

To capture the feel of ARG in 5e will definitely require a lot of new class paths and backgrounds. It may also require a new class or two and disallowing some existing class paths.

I think you may be misunderstanding what the Warlock is. The Warlock is a Class which has forged an arcane pact with an otherworldly power. In 5e, the three given are Archfiend, Archfey, and Great Old One. This fluff is completely inappropriate for Illiirite, Saluwean, or Ss'ressen casters. However, it lines up pretty much 1:1 with the Arcane Spell Casting (Primal) in ARPG. In ARPG, Shamans have made pacts with otherworldly powers such as nature spirits, primordial forces, or powerful elementals.

In terms of Druids, I can see them also being considered Shamans in the real life version of that word.

In the 3.X days Druids were used to represent the followers of Jeggal Sagg, some followers of elorii /elemental pantheons, and male followers of Saluwe. They were considered divine followers of a God. Druids were not used to represent the Ehtzara of the Hinterlands.

It could be true that the warlock class is not mechanically equal to the true caster classes (I haven't played a lot of 5e, I don't know)...but I agree with Cody that thematically it's a good fit for where Primal powers are supposed to originate from.

Further ... I don't know how the 3rd edition campaign will influence decisions for conversation to 5E. I know Henry has said in several places that he felt the tropes of D&D forced him to include some material even though it didn't perfectly fit into his idealized mental image of Arcanis. An example of this might be (half) orcs and (half) hobgoblins which have been folded into the Gar.

On the other hand elves (elorii) and gnomes (half-dwarves) have never matched their D&D archetypes.

I hope that this time round Henry & Company do not feel the need to make allowances for material that contradicts their vision. I would rather see a conversion that is thematically faithful rather than something that is mechanically faithful.

I haven't taken a look at the 5e Warlock class to provide much analysis. My recollection on the Warlock is that from a flavor perspective it is very much a match to the way the Primal Caster is described.

Mechanic system conversions in general tend to be problematic. When Arcanis converted to ARG, the mechanics were designed to match the world view but were significantly different than 3.5. Some concepts were hard to translate, or translate faithfully. Moving back there are gonig to be a bunch of the same challenges.

In addition to classes not being perfect fits to all the new concepts that ARG opened up, 5e doesn't have prestige classes which further limits the ability to import Arcanis specific flavor from a build perspective. It'll be interesting to see how it all works out.

With a sweep of his hat,

Paul

Shaman was introduced under 3.x as its own class, not as an offshoot of druid. That makes it very...flexible about where they should fit in the new system. After all, they were different enough from druids to warrant their own class previously, so they probably still should be. Thematically, I think the connection of Shaman=Warlock is strong because of the pacts, which is why I was so surprised to see that the Ehtzara (previously a prestige class of shaman, essentially- since like shaman they were divine casters) as a subset of sorcerer. I don't know if this is one of the things that should be reviewed before the production of the magic item book.

But while I think that thematically they are a close link, I would really prefer it be its own class. Largely because it is the most unique version of caster from the ARG, and thus the most specific to the world (besides maybe sorcerer-priest) so it helps bring more of the arcanus flavor to the rules. Secondly, because I generally find warlocks boring. The have the eldritch blast which is what they do 90% of the time, and then some little flavor powers around the edges. Maybe that could be fixed with giving them a specific patrons/pacts and invocations unique to shamans, but its starting from a pretty boring template.

Maybe that is just me though. I like the ARG system because there are choices to make every tier, even if it is just a choice of "do take +2 to all defenses this rank or next?" Sure, you are going to take that option some time in the tier, but you can always explore options. I like that because I like working on characters. I find 5e to be an OK system, but pretty boring because almost all of your character decisions are made by 3rd level. I don't know about character class power balance, but generally, the characters are just too darn easy/boring to make!

Yes. That's why I said it works mechanically but not thematically. Shaman = Warlock has the opposite problem (it works thematically but not mechanically (unless you want Shamans in 5e Arcanis to be extremely limited in casting)).

I think the real issue for me is that Warlocks are extremely limited in themselves in 5e. They work far better as multi-class than single-class.