D&D 5E Could the Sorcerer get a Shaman subclass

[Marandahir]

Just make new classes. Subclasses are really just a big pile of nothing.

Why go to that trouble when subclasses are the meat and potatoes of 5e?

Classes are notoriously hard to balance, and need to not step on each others' toes. If it steps on the toes of another class, it belongs as a subclass doing so (essentially, multiclassing through subclasses).

Class needs a clearly defined concept that can handle a dozen of subclasses that are each their own archetype.

Shaman doesn't meet this criteria. So it should be a subclass.

Heck we already have an "Animal Spirits" Patron from the D&D Adventurer's League (Icewind Dale season). I don't know if we need anything else for a Shaman!

Narrative has to come first. Mechanics for mechanics sake is how you get 3.5e splat cruft.

 

[Vael]

I tend to go with the 4e identity for Shamans, so they are a Primal caster, like Druids and some Rangers/Barbarians. And I've wanted a Primal Sorcerer as a complement to the Divine Soul. So this isn't a horrible mismatch to me, one could draw out possible Shaman options from both the Druid or the Sorcerer. Like the Gish, this is a cat that can be skinned a couple of ways.

 

[Mordhau]

Why go to that trouble when subclasses are the meat and potatoes of 5e?

Meat and Potatoes implies a lot more body than they have. It won't feel like a Shaman if you build it on a Sorcerer or Druid Chassis. It will feel like a Sorcerer or Druid with a couple of different bits.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Meat and Potatoes implies a lot more body than they have. It won't feel like a Shaman if you build it on a Sorcerer or Druid Chassis. It will feel like a Sorcerer or Druid with a couple of different bits.

The basic druid chassis already feels very much like a shaman, so there is no problem. You can of course enhance it further via a subclass.
The shepherd druid is pretty much a perfect archetypal shaman.

 

[Li Shenron]

This is a very difficult question...

I am not sure what would be the source of a shaman's "spirit magic" knowledge. Note that I say knowledge i.e. how did they learn their kind of spellcasting: Wizards studied, Sorcerers were born with that, Warlocks bargained, Clerics devoted their life to a deity. Depending on what you think those spirits should be, it could fit all these classes... Can you identify a single spirit powerful enough for a pact or would you allow a collective to grant a pack? Warlock! Would you consider shamanism a worship and spirits a pantheon (or have a deity of spirits)? Cleric! Someone who was born with affinity to spirits? Sorcerer! I also don't see why a Wizard couldn't choose to study spirit-oriented spells, there are already many, owever the other spells get in the way... as soon as the player start giving up and add Fireball or similar spells because they are convenient, it's breaking the archetype. And Druids of course could work because of many things although I am not sure all shamans should have wildshape.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Arguably the biggest class design mistake in 5e was not reflavoring the sorcerer as a more primal class with much broader design space rather than how it landed as just a weakish, minorly differentiated variant of the wizard. It would have done a lot for both the class itself and the game system as a whole - preserving the most important parts of its mechanical identity while allowing it to incorporatedesign space for all kinds of things that are awkward fits with the existing lineup of core classes, similar to how the fighter is structured.

I think it's for that reason that MTG is doing what it is in analoguing shaman with sorcerer.

As it stands, it's imperfect, but I still think it's the best fit. Sorcerery reflects innate magic, which means holding the power of magic without really undertanding its origin or drawing it out through intellect or manipulation of powerful entities. This logically ties in very neatly with the notion of "primal casters" - even accessing it through trances, or similar ideas - it would have originated before advanced study of magic led to proliferation of wizards, warlocks, bards, clerics, or druids.

The Divine Soul provided a good example of how similar concepts can be carved out of the sorcerer - things like oracles, spirit shamans, witches, etc. I say let's capitalize on it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Arguably the biggest class design mistake in 5e was not reflavoring the sorcerer as a more primal class with much broader design space rather than how it landed as just a weakish, minorly differentiated variant of the wizard. It would have done a lot for both the class itself and the game system as a whole - preserving the most important parts of its mechanical identity while allowing it to incorporatedesign space for all kinds of things that are awkward fits with the existing lineup of core classes, similar to how the fighter is structured.

I think it's for that reason that MTG is doing what it is in analoguing shaman with sorcerer.

As it stands, it's imperfect, but I still think it's the best fit. Sorcerery reflects innate magic, which means holding the power of magic without really undertanding its origin or drawing it out through intellect or manipulation of powerful entities. This logically ties in very neatly with the notion of "primal casters" - even accessing it through trances, or similar ideas - it would have originated before advanced study of magic led to proliferation of wizards, warlocks, bards, clerics, or druids.

The Divine Soul provided a good example of how similar concepts can be carved out of the sorcerer - things like oracles, spirit shamans, witches, etc. I say let's capitalize on it.

I kind of agree, although really the Warlock makes such a more interesting and distinctive chassis.