This conversation has gotten me curious. If there were a “shaman” Class for 5e, what would people expect it to do?
So, suppose one could simply unbolt Wild Shape from the Druid, would that be a reasonable place to start as a Shaman? I suppose it would also have to swap/add spells to grant the shaman more divination and necromancy options in their spell list.
Once Wild Shape has been unbolted, what should replace it? Would it get a different main class feature, or would that be turned over for a variety of subclass features?
What iteration(s) should that replacement feature take?
I do agree. Taking out an opponent and not buffing allies can and does work but if I where sitting at a table and someone says.....play your own ******* class. That character better not look to me to heal them when they go down....they better bring their own healing and hope someone else has brought Revivify or Raise Dead for when they go down.
What "play your own class" means is "don't tell me how to play my character". And sure, it goes both ways.
This conversation has gotten me curious. If there were a “shaman” Class for 5e, what would people expect it to do?
So, suppose one could simply unbolt Wild Shape from the Druid, would that be a reasonable place to start as a Shaman? I suppose it would also have to swap/add spells to grant the shaman more divination and necromancy options in their spell list.
Once Wild Shape has been unbolted, what should replace it? Would it get a different main class feature, or would that be turned over for a variety of subclass features?
What iteration(s) should that replacement feature take?
This conversation has gotten me curious. If there were a “shaman” Class for 5e, what would people expect it to do?
So, suppose one could simply unbolt Wild Shape from the Druid, would that be a reasonable place to start as a Shaman? I suppose it would also have to swap/add spells to grant the shaman more divination and necromancy options in their spell list.
Once Wild Shape has been unbolted, what should replace it? Would it get a different main class feature, or would that be turned over for a variety of subclass features?
What iteration(s) should that replacement feature take?
What else, if anything, should be replaced?
Ideas?
While admittedly not addressing Yurei's concern about people telling the Shaman to wild shape if it was a druid subclass, would a mechanic similar to Spores Druid that uses the Wild Shape charges to boost spellcasting be a reasonable compromise? From a WoW perspective, that would put it closer to Boomkin than Shaman but would give some recourse with the main class baggage. The Land Druid seems like it's close to what my concept of a shaman would be except I would expect some sort of ancestral ties to act as a main feature. Something like Healing Spirit with different options based on subclass could be interesting where the spirit gives an Aura that buffs or debuffs based on its theme.
The Witch Doctor/Shaman idea seems like it would be close enough that each could be it's own subclass of whatever that main class would be.
One thing that doesn't seem to be represented very well in D&D is blood magic where the caster uses some of their life force to enhance their magic. That may be a function of healing being so limited, perhaps the sense that blood magic would be more taboo, or some other reason but that could be an interesting avenue of exploration as well.
There is zero chance anyone actually playing campaign style D&D can possibly have gone through every combination of class/ subclass/ race. There just isn't. More classes is ridiculous. Another 5-7 years, OK, then people might be getting through all of them. Until then, be quiet about new classes and play what we have, which is an immense library.
This sounds awfully like, "Sit down and eat your vegetables."
I can know what I want to play without having actually playing every single class for a year or more, thank you very much. There is a psionics vacancy in 5e, and will still be one after TCoE. There is a half-arcane melee caster vacancy in 5e, and I can still know that I would like one in the game without playing a Four Elements Monk. I know all of this the same way I knew before E:RftLW came out that I wanted an artificer class.
So help me understand, how would you build a half caster melee class? How would you do Psionic?
I never played previous editions, so I don't know exactly how the Magus was before. Perhaps someone else could give more specifics, but I would have it be an Intelligence based class, with a d10 hit dice, spell slots like paladins and rangers, a fighting style choice like paladins and rangers (from dueling, protection, two weapon fighting, great weapon master, and one that gives 2 wizard cantrips). They'd get Extra Attack, and abilities that are arcane-weapon based ones that would empower their attacks. They'd get a mix of some wizard spell, and maybe others specific to them.
Iamsposta is developing a Psion class that doesn't use Spellcasting. Basically that.
So no offense, but what you described is not a new class, it is a fighter subclass. You could develop a new fight subclass that would give you everything you listed.
I dont think 5e needs more classes as the subclasses cover a lot of the bases you would cover with a different base class.
What I WOULD like to see them do is redo some of the bad classes like Ranger and Sorcerer, fix their core mechanics, spruce up the WEAK subclasses instead of just relying on new ones to give em some oompf and do a base class update pdf or something thats free. Know free sucks for them but.. woof they owe it to the ranger and sorcerer
I think the Ranger will probably be fixed in Tasha's. We know the primal beast will be there (largely fixing beastmaster) and that class variant features will be included and many of the Ranger's core features all have variants, while unconfirmed I could see them adding spell list for the phb rangers as well.
As for Sorcerer, I really have not heard many people complain about the core class, so I can't weigh in there other than to say that they have known the ranger to be "broken" since 2016 and we are only just now getting a fix in the form of optional rules, so i wouldn't count on them redoing any core class until 6e.
So no offense, but what you described is not a new class, it is a fighter subclass. You could develop a new fight subclass that would give you everything you listed.
Eh, not really, eldritch knight doesn't really do 'magic enhancing fighting'. It's more like an arcane variant paladin.
As to the "what can you not play with what's available" open question, there are a few loose concepts that I can easily throw up, but I don't know if there's enough to really make them their own base classes. Some of them could be subclasses for things that already exist, and some of them might be more do-able when the CVFs come out in Tasha's Caldron. Anyway...
Witch Doctor/Voodoo
Shaman (building off the flavor of the Orc Shaman caster unit from WC3) -- I think there's a Barb subclass that tries to do this...
a martial class that has wide ranging battlefield control, rather than damage output or AC tanking
Psionics
some kind of summoner, doesn't do much themselves other than summon minions, the minions do the fighting
a class that more effectively captures the idea of being a bender from Avatar (Way of 4 Elements attempts to do this, but can't do it well)
a support caster that themselves can't really use more than cantrips, but their abilities allow them to enhance the spells of other casters
That's what I've got off the top of my head...
Witch Doctor/Voodoo - could be a druid or warlock
Shaman - could work on any number of existing classes
a martial class that has wide ranging battlefield control, rather than damage output or AC tanking - could do ranger
Psionics - ok, but what subclasses do you make?
some kind of summoner, doesn't do much themselves other than summon minions, the minions do the fighting - druid or ranger
a class that more effectively captures the idea of being a bender from Avatar (Way of 4 Elements attempts to do this, but can't do it well) - could do with any caster really
a support caster that themselves can't really use more than cantrips, but their abilities allow them to enhance the spells of other casters - bard that replaces spellcasting
So far I haven’t seen an answer to that short of ‘magus’ and I am unclear on what exactly they want in such a class as no one has provided details on what they would want such a class to do? Saying I want to cast spells and attack every turn isn’t a class.
Okay, well, let's take a crack at that then.
I've never played anything before 4e (briefly), so I'm unfamiliar with how classes from older editions worked, but from what I can gather the main draw of the Magus was that it's an arcane warrior with the ability to imbue spells into it's weapon strikes. So, for convenience's sake let's use both the Paladin and the Wizard as bases for comparison.
Let's start by making it a martial arcane half-caster (INT) with prepared spells and a fairly standard progression for things other martial half-casters normally get. Let's also give it an "arcane sense" that lets it detect magic (similarly to how the Paladin has Divine Sense to detect celestials/fiends/undead) and a 1/short rest 30 ft teleport that gains additional uses as you level to start with. Once it has spellcasting, let's give its main mechanic, the "spell strike"; from what I can understand, in past editions it allowed you to apply spells whenever you struck with a weapon, so there's two ways I can see to do this. The first would be to port the feature straight over, which may or may not fit seamlessly; the second would be to model it after the Paladin's Smite, only dealing less damage with an additional effect such as frighten, charm, stun, AOE, etc. Let's also give it Arcane Recovery, to give it a sense of truly being an arcane caster as well as a little crunch to help it. At higher levels, lets also give it a version of War Magic that allows it to make a BA attack whenever it uses it's Spell Strike, as well as something akin to the Wizard's higher-level abilities that gives it a couple free castings of chosen spells, and for a capstone...let's say, it becomes resistant to all nonmagical damage and gains a bonus of some kind to saving throws against spells.
There, we now have a blueprint for an arcane half-caster. It needs a ton of fleshing out, considering I pulled it pretty much out from my ass, but in terms of flavor and mechanics I feel there's enough there for it to be able to stand apart on it's own (and let's be honest, there's less separating many of the core classes from each other than most people are willing to admit).
I could literally write you a fighter subclass right now that gets all of that if you want
This conversation has gotten me curious. If there were a “shaman” Class for 5e, what would people expect it to do?
So, suppose one could simply unbolt Wild Shape from the Druid, would that be a reasonable place to start as a Shaman? I suppose it would also have to swap/add spells to grant the shaman more divination and necromancy options in their spell list.
Once Wild Shape has been unbolted, what should replace it? Would it get a different main class feature, or would that be turned over for a variety of subclass features?
What iteration(s) should that replacement feature take?
What else, if anything, should be replaced?
Ideas?
From what I've heard the original shaman class was actually very close to cleric. I think a better start would be removing the cleric spell list from a nature cleric and replacing it with the druid spell list.
Once Tasha’s comes out there will be (unless I miscounted) 112 subclass options. Considering most classes are front loaded, when you start multiclassing the options get pretty extensive. That isn’t to say I wouldn’t welcome a well thought out new class, I am playing a Battle Smith Artificer that I love, but I also can’t think of what I would add.
Honestly, if you feel too limited by 5e, take a look at Pathfinder 2e. You’re basically guaranteed to not build the same character as anyone else.
The thing is the subclasses are honestly pretty minor, and don't really change how the classes play with the odd exception.
I'd be happy with the current class numbers (or even less classes) if the subclasses provided much more meaningful change, and could completely overwrite the main classes abilities and flavors. A paladin will always be a half divine caster with some healing, divine smite, auras, etc. Several earlier edition classes could be pretty accurately recreated with these 'subclass+' features.
- Shaman was practically a cleric with a druid spell list. A subclass done like this could outright remove the cleric spell list for a shaman subclass and replace it with the druid one.
- Warlord could be a fighter subclass, with two of its extra attacks and action surge removed in exchange for its ally buffing abilities at 2nd level instead.
- Magus could be a fighter subclass, with action surge replaced with spellstrike, only two attacks, and arcane half casting from the sorcerer spell list.
- Witch as a warlock subclass, but with int casting, and hexes (there is a massive list not just one hex for those saying warlock already has hexes) replacing invocations.
Current subclasses provide too minor changes to ever feel like the old classes, while people don't feel those same old classes are unique enough to merit their own concept.
I like the design of having core abilities that every fighter, paladin, whatever has. If you start building subclass features that override core abilities you have to do a lot more work to make sure you are balancing and you are introducing a feature that I have never heard anyone ask for. Not saying you can't ask for it, just that it would be a major shift in design philosophy and I don't see them doing that 5 years in.
One issue with "Solve everything with subclasses!" is that subclasses come with all the baggage from the core class they're subbing for. Much of which will often dilute, pollute, or even outright destroy the particular aesthetic one is shooting for.
A lot of folks want a Shaman class, for example. A primal spellcaster bound to the land that consorts with spirits and directs nature's fury against enemies of the wilds. Pretty much everyone has, at some point, said "why aren't you just, y'know...playing a Druid?"
Answer: **** WILD SHAPE FOREVER. I absolutely detest that ability because it has poisoned the well on what people think 'druids' are for decades. Druids are not "primal spellcasters that consort with spirits and direct nature's fury" to a classic D&D player. Druids are nothing but closet furries whose entire purpose in life is to let people play out their damned werewolf fantasies without having to deal with actual lycanthropy. Nobody is ALLOWED to play a druid that doesn't Wild Shape, because every goddamned jackass in the world thinks that stupid ability is the only reason druids exist. I hate Wild Shape. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, and it absolutely interferes with me playing druids because a druid that does not use Wild Shape is much akin to a cleric that does not use Channel Divinity, or a paladin that doesn't Smite. You can absolutely play that way, but you're foregoing a huge chunk of your class' intended strength and you'll always know it.
A 'Shaman' subclass bolted onto the Druid chassis, the way so many people think it should be, would have to deal with the fact that it's a druid and thus expected to turn into bears at a moment's notice. Never mind that the player cannot reconcile why their 'Shaman' is turning into a bear despite that making absolutely no god damned sense - they'll do it and like it or they can just not play D&D.
Does that mean Wizards should build a 'Shaman' class for those folks who might want to be druid-adjacent but cannot stand ****ing Wild Shape? Probably not - but it does mean "just make a subclass, idiot" doesn't work for those who actively dis-want the baggage from an existing core class.
We have a druid in the party of one game I play and he very rarely wild shapes and it hasn't impacted the game negatively at all. Ok, so you don't like the idea of attaching them to druid, make it a ranger subclass or even a warlock and add a nature based patron
To say that is needs its own class you need to support how it would be different and what type of subclasses it would get
This conversation has gotten me curious. If there were a “shaman” Class for 5e, what would people expect it to do?
So, suppose one could simply unbolt Wild Shape from the Druid, would that be a reasonable place to start as a Shaman? I suppose it would also have to swap/add spells to grant the shaman more divination and necromancy options in their spell list.
Once Wild Shape has been unbolted, what should replace it? Would it get a different main class feature, or would that be turned over for a variety of subclass features?
What iteration(s) should that replacement feature take?
What else, if anything, should be replaced?
Ideas?
From what I've heard the original shaman class was actually very close to cleric. I think a better start would be removing the cleric spell list from a nature cleric and replacing it with the druid spell list.
The problem with *attempting* to do it that way is that the way class rules work don't have a way of doing that. There's no way to remove a spell list from a class. You can add to it, like any of the Expanded Spell List features, and you can say "you may pick your spells from the Cleric spell list, in addition to the Sorcerer spell list", like the Divine Soul Sorcerer does. But you can't remove an existing spell list from a class. You'd have to create a new class that either uses the existing Druid spell list, or has it's own uniquely curated spell list.
a class that more effectively captures the idea of being a bender from Avatar (Way of 4 Elements attempts to do this, but can't do it well) - could do with any caster really
I'd have to assume you've never actually watched AtlA then. There is a fairly small list of attack Cantrips, and only one of them fits a particular bending discipline -- Firebolt for firebending. Once you move beyond Cantrips, you're stuck with spellcasting and spell slots as the limiter. But there are only a handful of spells that even fit the concept of being a bender, and most of them are fire themed. So you can sort of make a firebender, maybe. But you'd have to explain how the spell Fireball actually fits into the context of being a firebender.
One issue with "Solve everything with subclasses!" is that subclasses come with all the baggage from the core class they're subbing for. Much of which will often dilute, pollute, or even outright destroy the particular aesthetic one is shooting for.
A lot of folks want a Shaman class, for example. A primal spellcaster bound to the land that consorts with spirits and directs nature's fury against enemies of the wilds. Pretty much everyone has, at some point, said "why aren't you just, y'know...playing a Druid?"
Answer: **** WILD SHAPE FOREVER. I absolutely detest that ability because it has poisoned the well on what people think 'druids' are for decades. Druids are not "primal spellcasters that consort with spirits and direct nature's fury" to a classic D&D player. Druids are nothing but closet furries whose entire purpose in life is to let people play out their damned werewolf fantasies without having to deal with actual lycanthropy. Nobody is ALLOWED to play a druid that doesn't Wild Shape, because every goddamned jackass in the world thinks that stupid ability is the only reason druids exist. I hate Wild Shape. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, and it absolutely interferes with me playing druids because a druid that does not use Wild Shape is much akin to a cleric that does not use Channel Divinity, or a paladin that doesn't Smite. You can absolutely play that way, but you're foregoing a huge chunk of your class' intended strength and you'll always know it.
A 'Shaman' subclass bolted onto the Druid chassis, the way so many people think it should be, would have to deal with the fact that it's a druid and thus expected to turn into bears at a moment's notice. Never mind that the player cannot reconcile why their 'Shaman' is turning into a bear despite that making absolutely no god damned sense - they'll do it and like it or they can just not play D&D.
Does that mean Wizards should build a 'Shaman' class for those folks who might want to be druid-adjacent but cannot stand ****ing Wild Shape? Probably not - but it does mean "just make a subclass, idiot" doesn't work for those who actively dis-want the baggage from an existing core class.
No? How do you think they achieve wild shape? How is 'by forming a gestalt with the appropriate animal spirit' not a plausible answer?
Shaman taking on animal attributes or forms is not any new concept and frankly a concept that fits better with a shaman than with any classical concept of 'druid.'
I think it would work for some types of shaman, but not for others. Then again, I feel the same way about Druids and Wild Shape. It doesn't make all that much sense to me for it to be a base class feature, beyond the fact that the initial subclass was going to use it and they didn't think that far ahead when developing it.
Feels like we're never going to get away from "Dude...just shut up and homebrew a subclass, moron" in this sort of discussion. As if nobody has ever had that thought before.
Hot take: people kept saying "just make a wizard subclass, you batch of freaking idiots" to all the folks who wanted the artificer, too. Wizards even tried that with their awful 'School of Invention' UA. The pushback was strongly against this plan, and what eventually became the artificer plays absolutely nothing like a wizard. There was no way to build a proper artificer into three or four crap-ass subclass features bolted into a framework that was not ever intended for those features. Now the actual artificer is here, it's amazing, and people are wondering if their favorite ideas might work better as a full class, too.
Why is that such an awful idea?
Hot take 2: Shaman as a 'Primal' half-caster, rather than a Magic Furry minus the fur. At 1st level a shaman chooses their Spirit Bond, a soul-deep connection to a primal force of nature which serves as their guardian, their advisor, and their power source. Some of these are animal spirits, such as Bear or Wolf. Some of them are facets of nature, such as the spirit of Storm or the spirit of Sea. One of them is Ancestral Host - a shaman who acts as a medium and channel for the collective spirits of their ancestors. Each different Spirit Bond provides its shaman with a different Mantle - an aura of primal magic that affects the shaman in a different way. The Bond also allows the shaman to invoke their guiding spirit actively, either conjuring the spirit briefly into the Material or allowing the shaman to draw on the spirit's power.
A Bear shaman's Spirit Mantle might grant him extra hit points, increased carrying capacity, and improved Strength; his Spirit Call manifests Bear as a Large creature with the 'Spirit of Bear' stat block that can rampage through his foes. A Storm shaman's Spirit Mantle might grant her access to Shocking Grasp and allow her to cast it with a 30-foot range as well as granting resistance to ranged attack damage from guardians winds; her Spirit Call allows her to shroud herself in a Hurricane Cloak which acts as Call Lightning, save that it doesn't require concentration and treats the shaman herself as the source of the lightning. An Ancestral Host shaman's Spirit Mantle grants him Expertise in History as he queries those who lived through it, the ability to cast Guidance on himself as a bonus action, and immunity to any sort of possession or domination ability. His Spirit Call can manifest as a spectral war band, surrounding the shaman and carving his enemies, or can imbue him with the bravery and power of those who came before him, granting him a variation of Tenser's Transformation.
Note - this is all drawn square from the seat of my pants. But I'm betting I could get more people than folks would think behind the idea of a Primal halfcaster whose tight communion with a guiding spirit of Nature grants them both passive and active supernatural benefits - and that many of the folks behind that idea would walk away in disgust if told "just...just make a FREAKING DRUID SUBCLASS, you incredible braindead loser!"
So no offense, but what you described is not a new class, it is a fighter subclass. You could develop a new fight subclass that would give you everything you listed.
Eh, not really, eldritch knight doesn't really do 'magic enhancing fighting'. It's more like an arcane variant paladin.
I didn't say what you described is an eldritch knight, I said you described a figter subclass and could build one
The problem with *attempting* to do it that way is that the way class rules work don't have a way of doing that. There's no way to remove a spell list from a class. You can add to it, like any of the Expanded Spell List features, and you can say "you may pick your spells from the Cleric spell list, in addition to the Sorcerer spell list", like the Divine Soul Sorcerer does. But you can't remove an existing spell list from a class. You'd have to create a new class that either uses the existing Druid spell list, or has it's own uniquely curated spell list.
That's an issue I have with the entire class system in 5e. They simultaneously went for low class numbers which were made up by subclasses, but then had minor subclasses which couldn't change much of how a class plays. The result is a large number of players unable to build the class they want compared to prior editions.
I'd go as far as calling 5e's class system a set of defined chess pieces, rather than a true system to make your characters.
Imo they should have either gone for more full classes OR gone for subclasses which can change how things work a lot more.
So no offense, but what you described is not a new class, it is a fighter subclass. You could develop a new fight subclass that would give you everything you listed.
Eh, not really, eldritch knight doesn't really do 'magic enhancing fighting'. It's more like an arcane variant paladin.
I didn't say what you described is an eldritch knight, I said you described a figter subclass and could build one
Yet an eldritch knight is stuck as a 1/3 caster, built around 4 attacks and action surge. It's a fighter with some party tricks.
A lot of people want something more like gishes from 3e, pathfinder, and 4e. Which had the duskblade, magus, and swordmage respectively. There were arcane half casters with their own unique set of completely unique core mechanics.
You could make paladin a fighter subclass. 1/3 cleric spells and a weak smite at 7th level. Or you would make barbarian a fighter subclass, which got a rage at 7th level. No one would be happy with them though.
a class that more effectively captures the idea of being a bender from Avatar (Way of 4 Elements attempts to do this, but can't do it well) - could do with any caster really
I'd have to assume you've never actually watched AtlA then. There is a fairly small list of attack Cantrips, and only one of them fits a particular bending discipline -- Firebolt for firebending. Once you move beyond Cantrips, you're stuck with spellcasting and spell slots as the limiter. But there are only a handful of spells that even fit the concept of being a bender, and most of them are fire themed. So you can sort of make a firebender, maybe. But you'd have to explain how the spell Fireball actually fits into the context of being a firebender.
I have watched it and yeah, to actually make a "bender" class you would have to come up with a whole host of spells, or alternatively you could just add a feature so that you change the damage type of existing spells, water benders do ice damage, fire do fire, earth do bludgeoning, and air do, pick one, force/thunder/lightning and now you can make a subclass, you get to theme everything with your chosen element and you can tap into the already massive spell list the game has
Hot take 2: Shaman as a 'Primal' half-caster, rather than a Magic Furry minus the fur. At 1st level a shaman chooses their Spirit Bond, a soul-deep connection to a primal force of nature which serves as their guardian, their advisor, and their power source. Some of these are animal spirits, such as Bear or Wolf. Some of them are facets of nature, such as the spirit of Storm or the spirit of Sea. One of them is Ancestral Host - a shaman who acts as a medium and channel for the collective spirits of their ancestors. Each different Spirit Bond provides its shaman with a different Mantle - an aura of primal magic that affects the shaman in a different way. The Bond also allows the shaman to invoke their guiding spirit actively, either conjuring the spirit briefly into the Material or allowing the shaman to draw on the spirit's power.
A Bear shaman's Spirit Mantle might grant him extra hit points, increased carrying capacity, and improved Strength; his Spirit Call manifests Bear as a Large creature with the 'Spirit of Bear' stat block that can rampage through his foes. A Storm shaman's Spirit Mantle might grant her access to Shocking Grasp and allow her to cast it with a 30-foot range as well as granting resistance to ranged attack damage from guardians winds; her Spirit Call allows her to shroud herself in a Hurricane Cloak which acts as Call Lightning, save that it doesn't require concentration and treats the shaman herself as the source of the lightning. An Ancestral Host shaman's Spirit Mantle grants him Expertise in History as he queries those who lived through it, the ability to cast Guidance on himself as a bonus action, and immunity to any sort of possession or domination ability. His Spirit Call can manifest as a spectral war band, surrounding the shaman and carving his enemies, or can imbue him with the bravery and power of those who came before him, granting him a variation of Tenser's Transformation.
Note - this is all drawn square from the seat of my pants. But I'm betting I could get more people than folks would think behind the idea of a Primal halfcaster whose tight communion with a guiding spirit of Nature grants them both passive and active supernatural benefits
So far I haven’t seen an answer to that short of ‘magus’ and I am unclear on what exactly they want in such a class as no one has provided details on what they would want such a class to do? Saying I want to cast spells and attack every turn isn’t a class.
Okay, well, let's take a crack at that then.
I've never played anything before 4e (briefly), so I'm unfamiliar with how classes from older editions worked, but from what I can gather the main draw of the Magus was that it's an arcane warrior with the ability to imbue spells into it's weapon strikes. So, for convenience's sake let's use both the Paladin and the Wizard as bases for comparison.
Let's start by making it a martial arcane half-caster (INT) with prepared spells and a fairly standard progression for things other martial half-casters normally get. Let's also give it an "arcane sense" that lets it detect magic (similarly to how the Paladin has Divine Sense to detect celestials/fiends/undead) and a 1/short rest 30 ft teleport that gains additional uses as you level to start with. Once it has spellcasting, let's give its main mechanic, the "spell strike"; from what I can understand, in past editions it allowed you to apply spells whenever you struck with a weapon, so there's two ways I can see to do this. The first would be to port the feature straight over, which may or may not fit seamlessly; the second would be to model it after the Paladin's Smite, only dealing less damage with an additional effect such as frighten, charm, stun, AOE, etc. Let's also give it Arcane Recovery, to give it a sense of truly being an arcane caster as well as a little crunch to help it. At higher levels, lets also give it a version of War Magic that allows it to make a BA attack whenever it uses it's Spell Strike, as well as something akin to the Wizard's higher-level abilities that gives it a couple free castings of chosen spells, and for a capstone...let's say, it becomes resistant to all nonmagical damage and gains a bonus of some kind to saving throws against spells.
There, we now have a blueprint for an arcane half-caster. It needs a ton of fleshing out, considering I pulled it pretty much out from my ass, but in terms of flavor and mechanics I feel there's enough there for it to be able to stand apart on it's own (and let's be honest, there's less separating many of the core classes from each other than most people are willing to admit).
I could literally write you a fighter subclass right now that gets all of that if you want
Actually, no you couldn't. You could certainly try, but if you made a fighter subclass with full half-caster progression with it's own saving throw and skill proficiencies, plus the features I mentioned, people would complain it was overpowered and demand it be nerfed. Plus, it would still have features from the base Fighter Chassis that I'm not looking to use. Plus, it would not have it's own chassis for me to have my own subclass features to slot in and customize like other classes would. I would be stuck with playing the same exact thing over and over again.
Feels like we're never going to get away from "Dude...just shut up and homebrew a subclass, moron" in this sort of discussion. As if nobody has ever had that thought before.
Hot take: people kept saying "just make a wizard subclass, you batch of freaking idiots" to all the folks who wanted the artificer, too. Wizards even tried that with their awful 'School of Invention' UA. The pushback was strongly against this plan, and what eventually became the artificer plays absolutely nothing like a wizard. There was no way to build a proper artificer into three or four crap-ass subclass features bolted into a framework that was not ever intended for those features. Now the actual artificer is here, it's amazing, and people are wondering if their favorite ideas might work better as a full class, too.
Why is that such an awful idea?
Hot take 2: Shaman as a 'Primal' half-caster, rather than a Magic Furry minus the fur. At 1st level a shaman chooses their Spirit Bond, a soul-deep connection to a primal force of nature which serves as their guardian, their advisor, and their power source. Some of these are animal spirits, such as Bear or Wolf. Some of them are facets of nature, such as the spirit of Storm or the spirit of Sea. One of them is Ancestral Host - a shaman who acts as a medium and channel for the collective spirits of their ancestors. Each different Spirit Bond provides its shaman with a different Mantle - an aura of primal magic that affects the shaman in a different way. The Bond also allows the shaman to invoke their guiding spirit actively, either conjuring the spirit briefly into the Material or allowing the shaman to draw on the spirit's power.
A Bear shaman's Spirit Mantle might grant him extra hit points, increased carrying capacity, and improved Strength; his Spirit Call manifests Bear as a Large creature with the 'Spirit of Bear' stat block that can rampage through his foes. A Storm shaman's Spirit Mantle might grant her access to Shocking Grasp and allow her to cast it with a 30-foot range as well as granting resistance to ranged attack damage from guardians winds; her Spirit Call allows her to shroud herself in a Hurricane Cloak which acts as Call Lightning, save that it doesn't require concentration and treats the shaman herself as the source of the lightning. An Ancestral Host shaman's Spirit Mantle grants him Expertise in History as he queries those who lived through it, the ability to cast Guidance on himself as a bonus action, and immunity to any sort of possession or domination ability. His Spirit Call can manifest as a spectral war band, surrounding the shaman and carving his enemies, or can imbue him with the bravery and power of those who came before him, granting him a variation of Tenser's Transformation.
Note - this is all drawn square from the seat of my pants. But I'm betting I could get more people than folks would think behind the idea of a Primal halfcaster whose tight communion with a guiding spirit of Nature grants them both passive and active supernatural benefits - and that many of the folks behind that idea would walk away in disgust if told "just...just make a FREAKING DRUID SUBCLASS, you incredible braindead loser!"
That's an idea I could get behind. Thematically, it's a bit of a meld of Ranger and Barbarian, but has it's own mechanics that make it unique from both without having to deal with the aspects of either that don't fit, ie Rage preventing spellcasting and pretty much anything Ranger that isn't half caster and a d10 hit die with a tie to nature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This conversation has gotten me curious. If there were a “shaman” Class for 5e, what would people expect it to do?
So, suppose one could simply unbolt Wild Shape from the Druid, would that be a reasonable place to start as a Shaman? I suppose it would also have to swap/add spells to grant the shaman more divination and necromancy options in their spell list.
Once Wild Shape has been unbolted, what should replace it? Would it get a different main class feature, or would that be turned over for a variety of subclass features?
What iteration(s) should that replacement feature take?
What else, if anything, should be replaced?
Ideas?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
What "play your own class" means is "don't tell me how to play my character". And sure, it goes both ways.
Probably some sort of spirit summoning.
While admittedly not addressing Yurei's concern about people telling the Shaman to wild shape if it was a druid subclass, would a mechanic similar to Spores Druid that uses the Wild Shape charges to boost spellcasting be a reasonable compromise? From a WoW perspective, that would put it closer to Boomkin than Shaman but would give some recourse with the main class baggage. The Land Druid seems like it's close to what my concept of a shaman would be except I would expect some sort of ancestral ties to act as a main feature. Something like Healing Spirit with different options based on subclass could be interesting where the spirit gives an Aura that buffs or debuffs based on its theme.
The Witch Doctor/Shaman idea seems like it would be close enough that each could be it's own subclass of whatever that main class would be.
One thing that doesn't seem to be represented very well in D&D is blood magic where the caster uses some of their life force to enhance their magic. That may be a function of healing being so limited, perhaps the sense that blood magic would be more taboo, or some other reason but that could be an interesting avenue of exploration as well.
So no offense, but what you described is not a new class, it is a fighter subclass. You could develop a new fight subclass that would give you everything you listed.
I think the Ranger will probably be fixed in Tasha's. We know the primal beast will be there (largely fixing beastmaster) and that class variant features will be included and many of the Ranger's core features all have variants, while unconfirmed I could see them adding spell list for the phb rangers as well.
As for Sorcerer, I really have not heard many people complain about the core class, so I can't weigh in there other than to say that they have known the ranger to be "broken" since 2016 and we are only just now getting a fix in the form of optional rules, so i wouldn't count on them redoing any core class until 6e.
Eh, not really, eldritch knight doesn't really do 'magic enhancing fighting'. It's more like an arcane variant paladin.
I could literally write you a fighter subclass right now that gets all of that if you want
From what I've heard the original shaman class was actually very close to cleric. I think a better start would be removing the cleric spell list from a nature cleric and replacing it with the druid spell list.
I like the design of having core abilities that every fighter, paladin, whatever has. If you start building subclass features that override core abilities you have to do a lot more work to make sure you are balancing and you are introducing a feature that I have never heard anyone ask for. Not saying you can't ask for it, just that it would be a major shift in design philosophy and I don't see them doing that 5 years in.
We have a druid in the party of one game I play and he very rarely wild shapes and it hasn't impacted the game negatively at all.
Ok, so you don't like the idea of attaching them to druid, make it a ranger subclass or even a warlock and add a nature based patron
To say that is needs its own class you need to support how it would be different and what type of subclasses it would get
The problem with *attempting* to do it that way is that the way class rules work don't have a way of doing that. There's no way to remove a spell list from a class. You can add to it, like any of the Expanded Spell List features, and you can say "you may pick your spells from the Cleric spell list, in addition to the Sorcerer spell list", like the Divine Soul Sorcerer does. But you can't remove an existing spell list from a class. You'd have to create a new class that either uses the existing Druid spell list, or has it's own uniquely curated spell list.
I'd have to assume you've never actually watched AtlA then. There is a fairly small list of attack Cantrips, and only one of them fits a particular bending discipline -- Firebolt for firebending. Once you move beyond Cantrips, you're stuck with spellcasting and spell slots as the limiter. But there are only a handful of spells that even fit the concept of being a bender, and most of them are fire themed. So you can sort of make a firebender, maybe. But you'd have to explain how the spell Fireball actually fits into the context of being a firebender.
I think it would work for some types of shaman, but not for others. Then again, I feel the same way about Druids and Wild Shape. It doesn't make all that much sense to me for it to be a base class feature, beyond the fact that the initial subclass was going to use it and they didn't think that far ahead when developing it.
Sigh.
Feels like we're never going to get away from "Dude...just shut up and homebrew a subclass, moron" in this sort of discussion. As if nobody has ever had that thought before.
Hot take: people kept saying "just make a wizard subclass, you batch of freaking idiots" to all the folks who wanted the artificer, too. Wizards even tried that with their awful 'School of Invention' UA. The pushback was strongly against this plan, and what eventually became the artificer plays absolutely nothing like a wizard. There was no way to build a proper artificer into three or four crap-ass subclass features bolted into a framework that was not ever intended for those features. Now the actual artificer is here, it's amazing, and people are wondering if their favorite ideas might work better as a full class, too.
Why is that such an awful idea?
Hot take 2: Shaman as a 'Primal' half-caster, rather than a Magic Furry minus the fur. At 1st level a shaman chooses their Spirit Bond, a soul-deep connection to a primal force of nature which serves as their guardian, their advisor, and their power source. Some of these are animal spirits, such as Bear or Wolf. Some of them are facets of nature, such as the spirit of Storm or the spirit of Sea. One of them is Ancestral Host - a shaman who acts as a medium and channel for the collective spirits of their ancestors. Each different Spirit Bond provides its shaman with a different Mantle - an aura of primal magic that affects the shaman in a different way. The Bond also allows the shaman to invoke their guiding spirit actively, either conjuring the spirit briefly into the Material or allowing the shaman to draw on the spirit's power.
A Bear shaman's Spirit Mantle might grant him extra hit points, increased carrying capacity, and improved Strength; his Spirit Call manifests Bear as a Large creature with the 'Spirit of Bear' stat block that can rampage through his foes.
A Storm shaman's Spirit Mantle might grant her access to Shocking Grasp and allow her to cast it with a 30-foot range as well as granting resistance to ranged attack damage from guardians winds; her Spirit Call allows her to shroud herself in a Hurricane Cloak which acts as Call Lightning, save that it doesn't require concentration and treats the shaman herself as the source of the lightning.
An Ancestral Host shaman's Spirit Mantle grants him Expertise in History as he queries those who lived through it, the ability to cast Guidance on himself as a bonus action, and immunity to any sort of possession or domination ability. His Spirit Call can manifest as a spectral war band, surrounding the shaman and carving his enemies, or can imbue him with the bravery and power of those who came before him, granting him a variation of Tenser's Transformation.
Note - this is all drawn square from the seat of my pants. But I'm betting I could get more people than folks would think behind the idea of a Primal halfcaster whose tight communion with a guiding spirit of Nature grants them both passive and active supernatural benefits - and that many of the folks behind that idea would walk away in disgust if told "just...just make a FREAKING DRUID SUBCLASS, you incredible braindead loser!"
Please do not contact or message me.
I didn't say what you described is an eldritch knight, I said you described a figter subclass and could build one
That's an issue I have with the entire class system in 5e. They simultaneously went for low class numbers which were made up by subclasses, but then had minor subclasses which couldn't change much of how a class plays. The result is a large number of players unable to build the class they want compared to prior editions.
I'd go as far as calling 5e's class system a set of defined chess pieces, rather than a true system to make your characters.
Imo they should have either gone for more full classes OR gone for subclasses which can change how things work a lot more.
Yet an eldritch knight is stuck as a 1/3 caster, built around 4 attacks and action surge. It's a fighter with some party tricks.
A lot of people want something more like gishes from 3e, pathfinder, and 4e. Which had the duskblade, magus, and swordmage respectively. There were arcane half casters with their own unique set of completely unique core mechanics.
You could make paladin a fighter subclass. 1/3 cleric spells and a weak smite at 7th level. Or you would make barbarian a fighter subclass, which got a rage at 7th level. No one would be happy with them though.
I have watched it and yeah, to actually make a "bender" class you would have to come up with a whole host of spells, or alternatively you could just add a feature so that you change the damage type of existing spells, water benders do ice damage, fire do fire, earth do bludgeoning, and air do, pick one, force/thunder/lightning and now you can make a subclass, you get to theme everything with your chosen element and you can tap into the already massive spell list the game has
Go on....
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It will please you to know that not once have I ever told another player how they should play their character that they have made. Ever.
Actually, no you couldn't. You could certainly try, but if you made a fighter subclass with full half-caster progression with it's own saving throw and skill proficiencies, plus the features I mentioned, people would complain it was overpowered and demand it be nerfed. Plus, it would still have features from the base Fighter Chassis that I'm not looking to use. Plus, it would not have it's own chassis for me to have my own subclass features to slot in and customize like other classes would. I would be stuck with playing the same exact thing over and over again.
That's an idea I could get behind. Thematically, it's a bit of a meld of Ranger and Barbarian, but has it's own mechanics that make it unique from both without having to deal with the aspects of either that don't fit, ie Rage preventing spellcasting and pretty much anything Ranger that isn't half caster and a d10 hit die with a tie to nature.