D&D 5E Classes you're hoping WotC will create

[Greg K]

But how many other 3e classes were created that were less engaging? 20? 30? Likely more. The odds of makings new, lasting addition to the game are likely 25:1. For every warlock, marshal, or ardent there's a healer, archivist, favoured soul, beguiler, hexblade, dragon shaman, dragonfire adept, spirit shaman, spell thief, and sooooo many more..

While I agree with your point that WOTC printed a lot of classes that were an unnecessary waste, the Spirit Shaman is a valid archetype worthy of its own class*. A Shaman class was found in the Basic D&D Gazeteers, the 2e supplement Shamans, and in one of the 4e PHB supplements. The 2e supplement aside as I have not seen it, the other official versions were, in my opinion, not nearly as well done as Green Ronin's class from its 3e Shaman's Handbook. Yet, the 4e Shaman was pretty popular (despite the need for a few more builds).

* I also think there should be both a Warrior Mage and Rogue Mage base class should exist. I just think the hexblade and beguiler were too specific. I would rather the spellsword, hexblade, eldritch knight, duskblade, and bladesinger all be subclasses of a warrior mage class that starts with cantrips and the arcane trickster and beguiler be subclasses of a Rogue Mage type base class that starts with cantrips.

 

[Minigiant]

I really like the warlock too. I dug it in 3e and played a melee eldricht strike warlock for some time.
But how many other 3e classes were created that were less engaging? 20? 30? Likely more. The odds of makings new, lasting addition to the game are likely 25:1. For every warlock, marshal, or ardent there's a healer, archivist, favoured soul, beguiler, hexblade, dragon shaman, dragonfire adept, spirit shaman, spell thief, and sooooo many more.

And I don't see 5e having the same content for the sake of content as 3e and 4e, where they can just throw waves of forgettable options into the game in the hopes of creating something memorable.

New classes are options that should cry out to be included. Things that are impossible to do under the current rules and just fit perfectly.

I agree.
True shapeshifters, true beast masters, minion generals, mutants, and a very few other fantasy archetypes cannot be expressed under the current classes but are heavily desired. 5th edition does not have skeleton of 3rd and 4th that attributed to tons of new classes.

 

[Greg K]

Edit: Somehow i clicked on Minigiant's post and pasted my reply to a post by TrippyHippy after my previous reply timed about before submitting.

The issue I have with introducing more Classes, aside from the general proliferation of rules and the point that most of the ideas for new Classes could mostly fit into the existing Background/Class/Archetype range currently available….is that if you look at most fantasy fiction, at 95% of all Characters would end up being Fighters or Rogues anyway.

Instead of wanting more and more Classes, why not simply use the existing framework to make more interesting personalities and motivations for characters?

I'm all for interesting personalities and motivations for characters. You need them if you want to play when I run. However, they don't mechanically support the character concept and, therefore, are irrelevant to the conversation.

Some people think using the existing framework and squinting is good enough. To myself, and others (most importantly those with whom I game), it is not. As far as I am concerned, some concepts are strong enough archetypes that deserve their own classes without shoehorning them into existing classes and subclasses. The existing framework often requires squinting, because too many things are hard coded into the existing classes bringing baggage that should not be there and other things need to be changed as early as level 1 even with subclasses and backgrounds. When the hoop jumping that is multi-classing is required, the problem just gets worse (my opinion of course).
I am not saying that backgrounds and subclasses do not have their place as they do. I just think that some things are better handled by a new class with its own subclasses including Shamans, Witches, the 3e OA Shaman (which can have its own archetypes per an issue of Dragon Magazine with class variants), a Warrior-Mage base class, and the Light armored Fighter (along the lines of Khaalis's Light Armored Fighter variant). Similarly, I want an official non-mystical, non-spellcasting light armored ranger base class that is an unparalleled outdoorsman, because it is a common fantasy archetype.

 

[Jester David]

While I agree with your point that WOTC printed a lot of classes that were an unnecessary waste, the Spirit Shaman is a valid archetype worthy of its own class*. A Shaman class was found in the Basic D&D Gazeteers, the 2e supplement Shamans, and in one of the 4e PHB supplements. The 2e supplement aside as I have not seen it, the other official versions were, in my opinion, not nearly as well done as Green Ronin's class from its 3e Shaman's Handbook. Yet, the 4e Shaman was pretty popular (despite the need for a few more builds).

* I also think there should be both a Warrior Mage and Rogue Mage base class should exist. I just think the hexblade and beguiler were too specific. I would rather the spellsword, hexblade, eldritch knight, duskblade, and bladesinger all be subclasses of a warrior mage class that starts with cantrips and the arcane trickster and beguiler be subclasses of a Rogue Mage type base class that starts with cantrips.

The shaman is an odd duck.

On the one hand, the archetypal shaman hasn't been well served by D&D and is typically just a cleric or druid. Which works to some extent.

But the 3e spirit shaman was totally just a druid reskin with a spirit instead of an animal companion. And the 3e class was a great example of the bad adverb-noun class naming, where they don't call it just a "shaman" to avoid confusion between the class and the role. ("Oh noes, it an assassin! That means they have 10+ class levels." "No, no. It's not an assassin assassin, just a guy-who-kills-for-money assassin.")
And the 4e shaman was just an update of that.

There might be room for a shaman style class. But that might work just as easily with a "spirits" clerical domain, or "circle of spirit" for the druid.

 

[Greg K]

There might be room for a shaman style class. But that might work just as easily with a "spirits" clerical domain, or "circle of spirit" for the druid.

I have no problem with those as options as some people will prefer it handled one of those two way, but they will not work in a satisfactory manner for me and many others. Then again, I also think the cleric is a poorly designed class even if it might be more balanced than in 3e (the only saving grace for the 3e cleric was the DMG tailored spell list variant, the UA spontaneous divine caster, and the UA Cloistered Cleric which gave an option for unarmored clerics). However, this about the shaman and not the cleric.

 

[Jester David]

I have no problem with those as options as some people will prefer it handled one of those two way, but they will not work in a satisfactory manner for me and many others. Then again, I also think the cleric is a poorly designed class even if it might be more balanced than in 3e (the only saving grace for the 3e cleric was the DMG tailored spell list variant, the UA spontaneous divine caster, and the UA Cloistered Cleric which gave an option for unarmored clerics). However, this about the shaman and not the cleric.

What kind of options and mechanics should an ideal shaman provide?

 

[TrippyHippy]

Edit: Somehow i clicked on Minigiant's post and pasted my reply to a post by TrippyHippy after my previous reply timed about before submitting.

I'm all for interesting personalities and motivations for characters. You need them if you want to play when I run. However, they don't mechanically support the character concept and, therefore, are irrelevant to the conversation.

Some people think using the existing framework and squinting is good enough. To myself, and others (most importantly those with whom I game), it is not. As far as I am concerned, some concepts are strong enough archetypes that deserve their own classes without shoehorning them into existing classes and subclasses. The existing framework often requires squinting, because too many things are hard coded into the existing classes bringing baggage that should not be there and other things need to be changed as early as level 1 even with subclasses and backgrounds. When the hoop jumping that is multi-classing is required, the problem just gets worse (my opinion of course).
I am not saying that backgrounds and subclasses do not have their place as they do. I just think that some things are better handled by a new class with its own subclasses including Shamans, Witches, the 3e OA Shaman (which can have its own archetypes per an issue of Dragon Magazine with class variants), a Warrior-Mage base class, and the Light armored Fighter (along the lines of Khaalis's Light Armored Fighter variant). Similarly, I want an official non-mystical, non-spellcasting light armored ranger base class that is an unparalleled outdoorsman, because it is a common fantasy archetype.

Shamans, AKA animism, should really be the remit of Druids - but it’s just a quirk of the system that they focus on naturalism instead. Indeed, the Totem Warrior Barbarian subclass is basically shamen-like, and I could see an argument for a Druidic subclass. Witches are basically what Druids could have been…..or Warlocks, depending on your view of what witchcraft is….but can merely be adapted to with a simple name-change rather than a full flung class. Similarly, Warrior Mage has been accounted for within a number of subclasses, as has ‘light-armoured’ fighters, as has non-mystical, light armoured ranger with outdoorsman skills (simply a range based Fighter with outlander Background). You have Feats also to aid with customisation, as well as multi classing.

In all those cases, I can’t see the need for a new Class.

 

[Minigiant]

What kind of options and mechanics should an ideal shaman provide?

Well

The regualr shaman feels like a subclass of druid or cleric.
The 3e spirit shaman was just the spirit version of druids.
And the 4e shaman was just a split of the druid in an attempt to keep the 4e druid to going full zilla and being broken.
Then the dragon shaman is a whole new beast unless you somehow let druids shapeshift into half-dragons.
And the "WOW shaman" is D&D druid who drops totem instead of shapeshifting.

So
Regular shaman- A spiritual subclass of cleric, druid, or wizard.
Spirit shaman- Circle of the Spirit druid. Basically use your wild shape to summon a beast as a beast companion instead of becoming a beast yourself.
Dragon shaman- Circle of the Dragon. Wildshape into a half dragon.
WOW shaman- some sort of druid or wizard who lets idiot warriors run a faction and ruin everything.

 

[Greg K]

What kind of options and mechanics should an ideal shaman provide?

Turn Spirits: This would not include corporeal undead, but would include creatures like Djinn, Elementals, Familiars, Fey, Ghosts (and other non-corporeal undead). This would need to be at level one
Detect Spirits
Totems/spirit familiars
Expertise in Nature skill and Heal skills as in many cultures Shaman's are walking encyclopedias of knowledge regarding plants and their medicinal uses.

The spell list should combine elements from the Druid and cleric as well as many spells dealing with non-corporeal beings
Spells that Bless, Cure Wounds and Disease, Cure Blindness, Deafness Poison, Bestow Curses, Remove Curses, Cause Disease
Spells that deal with Augury and Diviniation
Spells that Deal with Animals, Plants, Weather and the Elements (no fireballs)
Spells that Deal with Spirits: Banishing, Controlling, Protection from, Lay to rest, Summoning, commune with dead, using spirit totems to attack
Spells or abilities that deal with projecting one's spirit: Project one's own spirit within our world, Sending one's own spirit into the spirit world

Subclasses: look at the PrCs in Green Ronin's Shaman's Handbook as a start

Edit: The above is off the top of my head. I have to leave for a doctor's appointment and may add a few more things when I return

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I'd love to see the 3.5 Binder. It's probably too specific to warrant making a new class for it but I loved the theme immediately. And I think bounded accuracy would suit it well to shrug off some it its jack-of-all-trades-and-master-of-none-ness.