Hrm. Wanted to do this as a poll.

In past editions I had a lot of fun with the shaman, which used some spells from column A) & some from column B).  So, I've been thinking about how best in which class would a 5e write-up work best as:

Warlock

Barbarian

Sorcerer

Cleric

Artificer

Paladin

Ranger

 Not wizard, rogue, monk or bard.

What do you guys think?

I have no idea what shamans were like or that they even existed but thematically I feel like warlock would suit it best, maybe a warlock with some kind of healing capability. No idea how but Barbarian would be awesome and could make a “1 dimensional class” a bit more intriguing, perhaps it wouldn’t use spells at all and have some other sort of shaman abilities. Maybe Druid?

I had to look up Shaman in D&D, since I don't really remember how they are meant to work. But from what I've been reading, for the most part, they were designed as Clerics with some Druid features, so I think that's probably the way I would go with it. You could probably take a Nature Domain cleric and just flavor them as a Shaman and it should mostly accomplish the feel of the class, but I would have to play as an old-school shaman to really be able to tell what features you'd really need that aren't already included in Nature Domain.

I would make them as a Warlock subclass influenced by Druids/Nature Domain Clerics.

The original shaman got 2 clerical 'spheres' which were narrower than 5e domains, and access to 1 wizard school. They weren't uber-casters though, with limited slots.

I'm currently leaning towards making them an artificier subclass- they pre-make the spells they're going to cast in single use fetishes, that work like scrolls or spell gems. 

With access to a lot of out of class spells, but still the limited slots per day of the artificier...

Definitely NOT a Warlock.  Everyone thinks of Warlocks as caster types, but they are more like Paladins or Rangers - limited casting with other stuff going on.   Yes they make a deal with a patron, but that is not what a Shaman does.  Shamans are about revering spirits rather than making a deal with a single creature.

Moreover, they are pure casters, which means: Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers or Wizards.    Wizards are out because books do not go with the legends.  

Thematically they are closest to Bards and Druids.  They typically do both a lot of musical/buffing stuff  (dancing to a drum beat around someone) and nature stuff - particularly take the form of animals.   Clerics and Sorcerors seem focused on other aspects - the don't look appropriate to me.

I would either do a Bard subclass with a nature theme, or a Druid subclass with musical/buffing theme.

Quote from Mog_Dracov >>

Definitely NOT a Warlock.  Everyone thinks of Warlocks as caster types, but they are more like Paladins or Rangers - limited casting with other stuff going on.  Yes they make a deal with a patron, but that is not what a Shaman does.  Shamans are about revering spirits rather than making a deal with a single creature.

Moreover, they are pure casters, which means: Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers or Wizards.    Wizards are out because books do not go with the legends.  

Thematically they are closest to Bards and Druids.  They typically do both a lot of musical/buffing stuff  (dancing to a drum beat around someone) and nature stuff - particularly take the form of animals.   Clerics and Sorcerors seem focused on other aspects - the don't look appropriate to me.

I would either do a Bard subclass with a nature theme, or a Druid subclass with musical/buffing theme.

 I don’t think that a Warlock has to make a pact with a single patron. When it comes to homebrew, why couldn’t a Warlock make their “pact” with the entire spirit world? 

Also, I don’t think Shamans have to be full casters. And clearly neither does the OP since they are going with Artificer as the basis for their work.

I suggested Warlock because I thought the C-5th-level spell progression they get fit the Shaman. Apparently the OP thinks so too since they went with Artificer who has the same progression (although the slots differ). I also thought that Invocations and Mystic Arcana fit the Shaman. The OP feels that Infusions and some as yet undisclosed other features fit better.

Frankly, I’m interested to see what they come up with.

I've been doing a pretty decent shaman with a lurker warlock/land druid multiclass. It gets pretty solid into the witch doctor feel.

I haven't decided yet actually, although I'm leaning artificier.

Originally I was thinking warlock, but warlocks aren't quite casty enough. And shamans don't really make a pact. Also thought about cleric, but shamans don't really worship the spirits either. What they do is more respect returned.

Hadn't even thought about the drumming & dancing- that is kinda bardy- but you see that in a lot of religions too. Maybe this could be reflected by the ritual casting feature?

Sorcerous bloodline...in some cultures it's a family business, but not all. I think sorcerers are too casty for a good fit. I can't see a shaman casting 9th level spells, which is also a mark against bard.

Druids, well I like their spell list, but I got a major problem with the class. Don't ask, I've vented enough on that subject.

As a paladin- erh, tough one. A lot of paly features fit-particularly the green knight oath of the ancients, but I just can't see a guy in full plate dancing around the fire to appease the spirits.

(Critical fumble-what's the damage on heat metal again?)

So I'm back around to artificier.  They can only do rituals of spells they've prepared, and there aren't so many options for thatsubclass as other classes...

What I'm wondering is... are we trying to recreate the Shaman class that appeared in earlier editions of D&D, or are we trying to conceive of a unique class that captures the feel of shamans in pop culture?

I think the flavor of artificer is all wrong though, and Shamans feel much more WIS or CHA based over INT.

If it had to be a subclass then Druid is the obvious place for a nature-based caster, I know you don't like them but why not make a new feature that replaces Wild Shape? Something like the Circle of Stars but it outright says you give up your shapechanging for this feature and Wild Shape always does X instead.

Personally, I'd probably make a whole new class for Shaman though. Maybe some kind of buff mechanic (like Bard's inspiration) centered around a spirit animal (like the totem barbarians). Each spirit animal could be a whole subclass, or it could be a separate defining feature like the Warlock pact boon. Honestly I feel like there's a lot of potential design space here and after thinking about it a bit now I feel a subclass would be too constraining.

Quote from scatterbraind >>

I think the flavor of artificer is all wrong though, and Shamans feel much more WIS or CHA based over INT.

If it had to be a subclass then Druid is the obvious place for a nature-based caster, I know you don't like them but why not make a new feature that replaces Wild Shape? Something like the Circle of Stars but it outright says you give up your shapechanging for this feature and Wild Shape always does X instead.

Personally, I'd probably make a whole new class for Shaman though. Maybe some kind of buff mechanic (like Bard's inspiration) centered around a spirit animal (like the totem barbarians). Each spirit animal could be a whole subclass, or it could be a separate defining feature like the Warlock pact boon. Honestly I feel like there's a lot of potential design space here and after thinking about it a bit now I feel a subclass would be too constraining.

 That’s a good point. I think an entire Shaman Class might actually fit better with the subclasses representing different shamanic traditions from around the world.

Well, when I think of Shaman, I think of:

• Multiple spirits- particularly animal and plant based, using different ones for different things
• Drug induced Vision Quest
• Curses
• Dancing to music  (But I could see that as a longer/ritual spell)
• Suffering for your power - sweat lodges, swearing to do X or not to do x, fasting, etc.)
• Masks
• Hint of dark powers but not necessary.  It's more like they simply do not draw the strict line between good and evil that clergy tend to draw.
• Animal and plant based magic

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from scatterbraind >>

I think the flavor of artificer is all wrong though, and Shamans feel much more WIS or CHA based over INT.

If it had to be a subclass then Druid is the obvious place for a nature-based caster, I know you don't like them but why not make a new feature that replaces Wild Shape? Something like the Circle of Stars but it outright says you give up your shapechanging for this feature and Wild Shape always does X instead.

Personally, I'd probably make a whole new class for Shaman though. Maybe some kind of buff mechanic (like Bard's inspiration) centered around a spirit animal (like the totem barbarians). Each spirit animal could be a whole subclass, or it could be a separate defining feature like the Warlock pact boon. Honestly I feel like there's a lot of potential design space here and after thinking about it a bit now I feel a subclass would be too constraining.

 That’s a good point. I think an entire Shaman Class might actually fit better with the subclasses representing different shamanic traditions from around the world.

 Agreed, but I'm starting to think the create homebrew class won't be implemented till after 10e hits the neuroweb. Yes, I can be impatient.

With classes that sub selection comes at level 1 (e.g. warlock, sorc,cleric) there's a whole lot of tweaking you can do with edits, almost enough to make a separate class. Whether the edits actually will translate to the character page remains unseen-just because you can edit the damage die on weapons in homebrew, that doesn't change what shows up on your sheet.

Quote from TransmorpherDDS >>

What I'm wondering is... are we trying to recreate the Shaman class that appeared in earlier editions of D&D, or are we trying to conceive of a unique class that captures the feel of shamans in pop culture?

 Yes.

When I think shaman in terms of 5e I think of the Circle of Spores Druid.  It's not perfect but it deals in a lot of the same types of things.  Maybe a little reflavoring is all you'd need?

Edit:  Have you looked at the homebfrew section here on DNDBeyond?  There might be something close to what you're looking for.

I made a Witch Doctor subbclass of Druid, you might be interested in:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/subclasses/50465-witch-doctor

I see Shaman as somewhere between a warlock and a druid mechanically. Small number of spells a day drawn from wherever they draw their power from, spells are probably changeable based on need, with a few "style" choices. 

I'd have them as int based. As the connection with what they have is learned, and not innate understanding. 

For how they get their powers their subclasses would be;

Elements - shaman who draw their power from a connection with the elemental beings of the world.

Nature - shaman who draw their power from life in general

Death - the witchdoctor type who communes with spirits.

Tribal - draws their power from their tribes ancestors

I personally would prefer a class for the Shaman, but WotC seems pretty unlikely to be making many more classes in 5e. I think the best current class to fit the theme is the Druid class, making a Circle of the Shaman, with tribal-crafting and other strange abilities. 

You've all given me a lot to think about.

Thanx for the input guys! 😀

I'm actually in the process of building a Barbarian Path of the Shaman now. I'll post a link when its ready.