Psion with Dark Sun.
Thanks for the write-up.
You suggest this might be a sub-class of Barbarian but this write-up makes me think more of some sort of cross between Ranger (as in the 1e version that was more Fighter than Rogue) and [Druid or Nature Cleric]. It'd get the fighting (Defender) prowess from the Ranger side and the transformations as a variant on Druid wildshape.
Or, it could end up as a variant of Shaman which is another option in the poll.
I can see the Druid variant, after all it already has Wildshape, but I think the full caster chassis is a bad match up for the concept.Traditional shaman concepts are pretty much covered in bards, druids, and clerics. I would expect the warden to fall under the druid subclasses but I'm intrigued by the barbarian concept and can see it.
Yeah, that's my thing. It would be a serious pain to balance, would introduce a bunch of extra mechanics, and would prolly be some flavor of complete mess.Oh, I get why a Summoner is a big ask. There's many reasons not to do one: hard to balance, action economy is tricky, the size of the class (it'll need a lot of it's own material, like stats for summons) not to mention what type of Summoner is it? A Necromancer, reanimating the dead? A Fey Summoner, shaping spirits into animals? The Psion forming Astral Constructs? Putting all those under one umbrella class seems like you'll run into the Mystic problem, the class is spread too thin and loses its identity.
That said, it does have a play style different that'll set it apart from the other classes, and it's certainly unique. Also, it's a class that can take some of the Lazy Warlord design space. And if we are going to see more crossing streams with Magic the Gathering, the game is centered on summoning creatures to fight for you, so not having a class that really highlights that is ... a missed opportunity.
All told, I'm not really expecting WotC to do a Summoner. I think we'll get a Psion/Mystic as the 14th class, and I'm skeptical there will be a 15th at all.
Maybe, and I certainly don't have my heart set on it ever happening. But aren't new mechanics pretty much required, if a new class is going to do new things and not just be a slight variation on an existing class? The Artificer introduced Infusions and took a lot of work to get the pets and constructs working okay. If we're speculating about something that can't be done as a reflavor or a new subclass, it has to be something as far out there as a Summoner.Yeah, that's my thing. It would be a serious pain to balance, would introduce a bunch of extra mechanics, and would prolly be some flavor of complete mess.
Except Bards are explicitly arcane, and clerics explicitly divine, while Shamans can gain their supernatural powers from secret knowledge, service to a higher power, negotiated pacts with familiar spirits, nature in the abstract, or some form of Animism - mostly that last, which is not well-represented by any of the three classes you mention.Traditional shaman concepts are pretty much covered in bards, druids, and clerics. I would expect the warden to fall under the druid subclasses but I'm intrigued by the barbarian concept and can see it.
Well, psionics has had multiple incarnations in past editions and accumulated not just sub-classes but full classes:Psionic is pretty much the only one of those that could support enough sub classes to justify a whole class.
With the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Ranger all able to do at least some healing, and HD, and healers kits & whatnot, there is rather a lot of healing in the game, already.Voted for Psion. Even though I loved the Warlord, there's just too much healing already in 5e.
No? Because the 5e concept of class & subclass seems very flexible, if we're to go by the PH classes.sure, lots of those have previous things that could be considered sub classes, but I dont think those really fit anything close to the 5E concept of class and subclass.
That can't be true, or we wouldn't have separate Druid, Sorcerer, Bard & Warlock (and Paladin & Ranger, and Barbarian and Monk) classes. The Big 4 could handle everything that way.Remember, 5E takes a broader approach to things and if fluff and flavor can handle it, then no need to make it unique in 5E.
I don't think it's any one thing - or anything, at all, to be found between the covers of the PH - that can be tagged as a major part of D&D's revival, at this point. IMHO, it's a cultural phenom, just like last time, and most of the factors - the big parts of that success - have virtually nothing to do with the game. 5e could be a re-print of the 2e core books or the Red Box & the Rules Cyclopaedia, and it'd be doing just as well.A big part of the success of 5E is its lack of proliferation of options
What class is next isn't a glut of options - the plethora of extreme tenuous-concept, niche sub-classes and oddball races we've been seeing, maybe. But psionics is not just more fiddly choices sub-dividing the same things, it's something outright missing from the game. Same for the Warlord. Arguably the same for the Shaman and even some of the others.What we want can be handled by homebrew and distribution on places like here and the Guild. A glut of options may make us happy, but in the long run I think it's pretty safe to say such would hurt D&D.