I want more classes. I really want more classes. Not because of some nostalgia for previous editions, I never played any of those, but because 5e's classes don't fit every aspect that can be filled. Psionics needs a class. I personally think Blood Hunters should be official. Shamans should be their own class. If there's a martial nature based half-caster class (ranger), a martial divine based half-caster class (paladin), there should be a martial arcane based half-caster class (magus or something along those lines). I personally would like a half-psion class, as well.
Based on my list above, I think there could be around 5 more classes in fifth edition. I extremely doubt WotC would do this, but it's what I personally would like.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
"Just homebrew it, bro" is a bad response to any sort of argument; anyone talking about the direction of the game going forward clearly has reasons that 'just homebrew it, bro' isn't good enough.
I dont think anyone has said that... I feel like you tend to bring up random points and apply them to people, even when no-one has said it in the first place lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The ability to cast a spell and then attack as a bonus action exists in the form of EK18 Improved War Magic. How much overlap between spellstrike and EK18? You could have it be a feature that triggers a number of times equal to your spell casting modifier or 1/3 of your class levels +1.
How close is it to the Smite spells?
The fact that something similar exists shouldn't necessarily prevent something else from approaching that same concept. The fact that a multiclass can reach the vicinity doesn't mean that the idea doesn't have merit as it's own class. But you would need some design space around a general class conside concept to merit a new class. What would the core concept be and what would the subclass concepts be?
Agreed, but there are costs. The artificer took two runs through UA, taking up those entire releases. Subclasses usually get one run, and two or three can fit in one UA release. This is very rough calculus, but it suggests that working on a new class takes up about as much design effort as around five subclasses. That's excluding time spent on new features like spells and feats.
While I could see expending that effort on psionics (because of DS fans) and artificers (for Eberron fans), I don't see much clamor for similar effort on myriad other ideas.
I've always had a bit of a soft spot for playing monsters, and while there are differences between the way that PCs are used and the way monsters are used that make certain types of creature powers problematic (e.g. regeneration, weapon immunity) and a lot of monsters are too narrowly defined to really be worthwhile on the time scale of a campaign (for example, a Werewolf could with some adjustment be viable, but it has no obvious upgrade paths), there are still a fair number of critters that could be playable enough as PCs, and there's no particularly easy way to give things powers (you can sort of do it by basing on a warlock and using invocations to define features, but it tends to wind up with some collateral you don't really want).
I wouldn't be opposed to seeing more classes, however I would like to see that amount of new classes not be very high. Maybe four at the absolute most.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I personally would like for there to be an even 20 classes, so you can roll a d20 to determine class randomly if you just want to make a random character, or make a random NPC as a DM. This would be my list of classes for this goal:
Artificer
Barbarian
Bard
Bladesinger
Blood Hunter
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Magus
Monk
Paladin
Psion
Ranger
Rogue
Shaman
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord
Wizard
Witch (Maybe a Runecaster instead)
Some of those definitely could be replaced with a different possible class, like the Witch, Psychic Blade, and Bladesinger. Any thoughts?
Edit: Removed Psychic Blade, added Warlord. It could be a fighter subclass, but that wouldn't accomplish everything this niche is supposed to accomplish.
The thing about hypothetical new classes is that they need to answer the following: what does this class due that's so different from other classes, and is that enough to actually justify an entire class rather than just adding a new subclass onto a different class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
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.
"Just homebrew it, bro" is a bad response to any sort of argument; anyone talking about the direction of the game going forward clearly has reasons that 'just homebrew it, bro' isn't good enough.
Furthermore, subclasses as the Answer To All Things tend to suck. For one, the Eldritch Knight is objectively awful. it's a crying shame because magical warriors enhancing their martial abilities with arcane power should be awesome, but the EK is just objectively a badly designed subclass with very limited utility whose best options in a fight are typically to ignore their magical abilities altogether.
For two, bringing back old classes as subclasses for vaguely related 5e base classes usually works poorly for both the 5e base class and the old subclass. Bladesingers apparently used to be elven swordsman who didn't even really use magic - their 'bladesong' was a martial technique that did martial things. From what I've heard at least, wasn't around for it. Bladesinger as a wizard subclass means that first, you're trying to be a wizard in melee combat. LOLshuur, good luck buddy. And second of all, it means whatever the old Bladesinger did it's not allowed to do anymore, because now it has to be a wizard with a weird sword fetish. The wizard base class does not benefit from anything the Bladesinger does outside munchkin tom****ery with AC abuse, and the Bladesinger as an idea just doesn't really work as a wizard.
Base classes are difficult to build and get right, correct. The answer should not be "let's release forty poorly designed subclasses a year and trade Class Bloat for Subclass Bloat", though.
I actually really enjoy the Eldritch Knight and we should be getting Rune Knight in the new book.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
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.
I do agree that it is unlikely anyone has played every subclass, especially when you start multiclassing, but I also don’t think it’s fair to call the request ridiculous. It is a valid request, but anyone making it by simply saying “I want more” needs to be able to answer the question “ok, so what can’t you make?”
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.
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.
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?
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
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.
I believe the magus came from PF, in which poorly designed gish classes were the rule, not the exception. There were gish prestige classes in 3e, the spellsword and bladesinger, and the swordmage and avenger in 4e. But the PrCs wouldn't really warrant a 5e class, and 4e classes aren't really comparable. The 3e hexblade base class got rolled into the warlock, and nobody is really arguing about that.
And of course Sposta is doing their own psionics class. We can evaluate it when we see it.
Yurei’s right, that Psi Die was really well conceived. But people’s kneejerk reaction was negative, and WotC didn’t even give the ink time to dry before they opened the survey, so people never had a chance to really give it a try.
If they had, I guarantee that the feedback would have been less skewed. The only thing really wrong with it is that since it was a subclass feature, there wasn’t enough to do with it. If it had been its own class, with a broader range of available applications, it would have really shined.
I thought the psi die was okay. I like dice pools in principle, but I found that it would make me, a risk-averse player, less likely to use my abilities. I'm more happy using abilities when I know I can use them a number of times. That lack of control made me feel a bit odd about playing a character that is allegedly in control of their psionic power. On the other hand, as it was written, it would have been a great fit for a wilder (barbarian sub?).
You really had lots of control more often than not. Simply leveling up got you larger dice which meant less probability of it rolling bust, and Replenishment was fine. I went all night long once and then rolled bust on my very last two rolls of the knight and still had my d4 and an unused Replenishment. It was not a problem. The only real problem was needing to take three feats just to give me enough things to use it for. It was awesome. But I am not the most risk averse individual. I’ll risk it on a roll of the dice, it’s D&D, not craps.
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
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
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).
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...
Yeah, don't just say "shaman" or "witch doctor." That doesn't really tell anyone what you mean. You've got to define what such a character is and how they work. What exactly do they do that sets them apart from existing classes, and why isn't it something that can be accomplished via subclass?
A class that focuses on summoning? I think the best you can hope for is just better summoning spells like what we've seen in Unearthed Arcana.
A class that simulates being a bender is tricky. I doubt we'd see one that gets closer than the Way of 4 Elements does. Getting something that simulates a character who's basically a demigod and doesn't have to deal with the limitations of a Vancian spellcasting system or burning through ki points to fuel their abilities is always going to fall short.
Finally, a class that revolves around buffing other people's spells while having little to no things that they can do on their own. I can tell you right away that such a class would be DOA.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I want more classes. I really want more classes. Not because of some nostalgia for previous editions, I never played any of those, but because 5e's classes don't fit every aspect that can be filled. Psionics needs a class. I personally think Blood Hunters should be official. Shamans should be their own class. If there's a martial nature based half-caster class (ranger), a martial divine based half-caster class (paladin), there should be a martial arcane based half-caster class (magus or something along those lines). I personally would like a half-psion class, as well.
Based on my list above, I think there could be around 5 more classes in fifth edition. I extremely doubt WotC would do this, but it's what I personally would like.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I dont think anyone has said that... I feel like you tend to bring up random points and apply them to people, even when no-one has said it in the first place lol.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Agreed, but there are costs. The artificer took two runs through UA, taking up those entire releases. Subclasses usually get one run, and two or three can fit in one UA release. This is very rough calculus, but it suggests that working on a new class takes up about as much design effort as around five subclasses. That's excluding time spent on new features like spells and feats.
While I could see expending that effort on psionics (because of DS fans) and artificers (for Eberron fans), I don't see much clamor for similar effort on myriad other ideas.
I've always had a bit of a soft spot for playing monsters, and while there are differences between the way that PCs are used and the way monsters are used that make certain types of creature powers problematic (e.g. regeneration, weapon immunity) and a lot of monsters are too narrowly defined to really be worthwhile on the time scale of a campaign (for example, a Werewolf could with some adjustment be viable, but it has no obvious upgrade paths), there are still a fair number of critters that could be playable enough as PCs, and there's no particularly easy way to give things powers (you can sort of do it by basing on a warlock and using invocations to define features, but it tends to wind up with some collateral you don't really want).
I wouldn't be opposed to seeing more classes, however I would like to see that amount of new classes not be very high. Maybe four at the absolute most.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I personally would like for there to be an even 20 classes, so you can roll a d20 to determine class randomly if you just want to make a random character, or make a random NPC as a DM. This would be my list of classes for this goal:
Some of those definitely could be replaced with a different possible class, like the Witch, Psychic Blade, and Bladesinger. Any thoughts?
Edit: Removed Psychic Blade, added Warlord. It could be a fighter subclass, but that wouldn't accomplish everything this niche is supposed to accomplish.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The thing about hypothetical new classes is that they need to answer the following: what does this class due that's so different from other classes, and is that enough to actually justify an entire class rather than just adding a new subclass onto a different class.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
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.
I actually really enjoy the Eldritch Knight and we should be getting Rune Knight in the new book.
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.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I do agree that it is unlikely anyone has played every subclass, especially when you start multiclassing, but I also don’t think it’s fair to call the request ridiculous. It is a valid request, but anyone making it by simply saying “I want more” needs to be able to answer the question “ok, so what can’t you make?”
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.
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.
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.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I believe the magus came from PF, in which poorly designed gish classes were the rule, not the exception. There were gish prestige classes in 3e, the spellsword and bladesinger, and the swordmage and avenger in 4e. But the PrCs wouldn't really warrant a 5e class, and 4e classes aren't really comparable. The 3e hexblade base class got rolled into the warlock, and nobody is really arguing about that.
And of course Sposta is doing their own psionics class. We can evaluate it when we see it.
You really had lots of control more often than not. Simply leveling up got you larger dice which meant less probability of it rolling bust, and Replenishment was fine. I went all night long once and then rolled bust on my very last two rolls of the knight and still had my d4 and an unused Replenishment. It was not a problem. The only real problem was needing to take three feats just to give me enough things to use it for. It was awesome. But I am not the most risk averse individual. I’ll risk it on a roll of the dice, it’s D&D, not craps.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
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
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...
That's what I've got off the top of my head...
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).
Yeah, don't just say "shaman" or "witch doctor." That doesn't really tell anyone what you mean. You've got to define what such a character is and how they work. What exactly do they do that sets them apart from existing classes, and why isn't it something that can be accomplished via subclass?
A class that focuses on summoning? I think the best you can hope for is just better summoning spells like what we've seen in Unearthed Arcana.
A class that simulates being a bender is tricky. I doubt we'd see one that gets closer than the Way of 4 Elements does. Getting something that simulates a character who's basically a demigod and doesn't have to deal with the limitations of a Vancian spellcasting system or burning through ki points to fuel their abilities is always going to fall short.
Finally, a class that revolves around buffing other people's spells while having little to no things that they can do on their own. I can tell you right away that such a class would be DOA.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.