D&D 5E What classes do you want added to 5e?

[Mouseferatu]

In any event, the "Shaman" is another class I want, but I'm afraid that (like the Warlock) it's something that gained some kind of meaning from 3.5 or 4e which is now baggage that cannot be jettisoned. What I'm picturing is a primalist/spiritualist, who uses divine magic, but not because of a connection to spirits, not to a specific god. The spirit pet concept that showed up in the UA Ranger variant would be something I could see a Shaman having.

I can see this working very well as a new subclass of druid.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I will point out that meta-discussions about warlord threads are also an over-flogged horse.

In any event, the "Shaman" is another class I want, but I'm afraid that (like the Warlock) it's something that gained some kind of meaning from 3.5 or 4e which is now baggage that cannot be jettisoned. What I'm picturing is a primalist/spiritualist, who uses divine magic, but not because of a connection to spirits, not to a specific god.

Yeah, it's not just 'uncivilized humanoid priest' anymore. 2e did several takes that I never saw but apparently a couple of them were at least tangentally related to spirits, 3.5 had a Spirit Shaman and a Dragon Shaman, and 4e a 'Shaman' that was prettymuch the Spirit version, and could be quite good at attack-granting, among other spirit-companion-based shenanigans.

I could even get behind a whole 3rd branch of magic: Spirit Magic. Shaman, Witch Doctors, Witches, Mediums...there could be a bunch of classes and sub-classes that use it.

That's potentially very cool. In my old AD&D variants, I had additional schools, one was 'Sorcery' (using the literal meaning of dealing with spirits), the mechanic was that you made pacts with or learned true names of specific spirits, and then 'memorized' (since you were a Wizard Specialist) "Invoke Spirit: ______ " in a spell slot determined by the spirits 'level.' When you invoked the spirit, you could use one of several spells it provided, usually of lower level than the slot. So Sorcerers were extra-versatile.

 

[TwoSix]

I will point out that meta-discussions about warlord threads are also an over-flogged horse.

In any event, the "Shaman" is another class I want, but I'm afraid that (like the Warlock) it's something that gained some kind of meaning from 3.5 or 4e which is now baggage that cannot be jettisoned. What I'm picturing is a primalist/spiritualist, who uses divine magic, but not because of a connection to spirits, not to a specific god. The spirit pet concept that showed up in the UA Ranger variant would be something I could see a Shaman having.

I could even get behind a whole 3rd branch of magic: Spirit Magic. Shaman, Witch Doctors, Witches, Mediums...there could be a bunch of classes and sub-classes that use it.

Sounds good to me. Of course, spiritualist with a spirit pet using a 3rd branch of magic is the exact definition of a 4e shaman, so it makes sense I agree.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I can see this working very well as a new subclass of druid.

The problem (I see) with sub-classing druid is that you're stuck with the shapechanging, which is strong enough that it limits what else you can add. And there isn't a precedent for removing base-class features in a sub-class.

I suppose what you could do is change it so that the highest CR you can shapeshift into is 1/8. That would make it a utility but not a combat ability. Then you could grant the sub-class other powers to compensate.

Really, the base class Druid should have just been a nature/spirit caster, with ONE sub-class being the shapeshifter.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sounds good to me. Of course, spiritualist with a spirit pet using a 3rd branch of magic is the exact definition of a 4e shaman, so it makes sense I agree.

Oh, that's a relief. I'm not very familiar with the 4e classes. Or even 3.5, beyond the base PHB.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The problem (I see) with sub-classing druid is that you're stuck with the shapechanging, which is strong enough that it limits what else you can add. And there isn't a precedent for removing base-class features in a sub-class.

Yeah, I wasn't thinking about wild shape (which is an odd lapse on my part, as it's one of my favorite aspects of the druid).

The more these discussions go on, the more I want to see WotC release more advice on modifying base classes beyond what subclasses do. Swapping out core abilities like wild shape, for instance. Not on a detailed numerical basis--I don't want to see classes reduced to a list of point-buy abilities--but just expanding on the advice that's already in the DMG.

It would be so easy to build a shaman--or an avenger, or an archivist, or what have you--by modifying existing classes just a little more than subclasses currently allow.

 

[TwoSix]

It would be so easy to build a shaman--or an avenger, or an archivist, or what have you--by modifying existing classes just a little more than subclasses currently allow.

Druids gain their subclass and Wild Shape at level 2, right? That would make it a little more palatable, as the subclass feature could say "Instead of gaining the Wild Shape ability, you gain X instead..." Less awkward than, say, a Rogue subclass losing Sneak Attack.

 

[Eric V]

Well, this was a fun thread while it lasted. Which was up to about ten pages ago.

Can someone start a new one? Something like, "What classes other than the warlord, which will not be discussed here either pro or con, would you like to see in 5E?"

Agreed. I don't know why some people felt the need to be rude and come in and start criticizing peoples' wants for the game.

As for more wants for the game, someone else mentioned a 5e version of "Oriental Adventures"; that was one of my favourite books for 3e with a lot of neat prestige classes for a good wuxia game. With a name change, I could get behind that for sure.

I made my own, but I'd love to see a sha'ir from WotC...especially if that means an Al-Qadim supplement/adventure path/whatever.

 

[Kabouter Games]

As for more wants for the game, someone else mentioned a 5e version of "Oriental Adventures[.]"

Oddly, I was just leafing through my ancient copy of Gygax's AD&D OA and was musing on it. Ought to be worth a giggle. There are PDFs of the book on the webz.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Oh, that's a relief. I'm not very familiar with the 4e classes. Or even 3.5, beyond the base PHB.

Yeah, 4e introduced a new branch of magic parallel to, but distinct from, divine and arcane magic. Similar to how many fans of psionics want it to be "magical," in the sense of being a clearly supernatural force directed by the will of the user, but also "not magical," in the sense of not being D&D Magic™ (that is, neither in the blood, nor in esoteric learning, nor in special miraculous endowment). That branch of magic, in 4e, is "Primal," named after the huge, perhaps infinite, set of Primal Spirits, which are the spontaneously generated genii locorum of the places, essences, seasons, creatures, etc. of the prime material plane.

[sblock=Digression about the details of why it's different]They are not deities (in 4e, deities come from the Astral plane) nor are they Elementals (who come from the Elemental Chaos), nor Demons (from the Abyss "beneath" the Elemental Chaos), nor Devils (evil divine beings, also from the Astral plane), nor are they eldritch abominations or perversions of existence (which come from the Far Realm). Thus, although the Primal Spirits would not exist without the world, which was created through the combination of Elemental and Astral powers, their abilities and nature is fundamentally distinct from both sides--and the Primal Spirits don't really like either the elementals or the deities very much. They like the elementals less, since at least the deities usually want to keep the world around and able to support worshippers, but the often-uncaring, flippant attitude deities have toward the survival and prosperity of the world they created means the Primal Spirits often don't get along with the deities in a very generalized sense. That's why 4e doesn't include a lot of direct divine intervention in the "assumed" setting--the Primal Spirits essentially evicted the gods, and don't allow the gods to have direct, overt access to the mortal world most of the time.[/sblock]

Anyway, the Shaman was the Primal class which most clearly demonstrated the "spirit" side of the Primal Spirits. It had a Spirit Companion, which could perform certain limited tasks and counted as a square occupied by an ally for various purposes (it blocked enemy passage, but not ally passage; it could help set up flanking; I want to say there were other benefits but I could be mistaken). The Spirit Companion also acted as a sort of mobile "second position" for the Shaman: many, though certainly not all, of its abilities could be cast within range of either the Shaman herself or her spirit companion. The difference between Druid and Shaman, thematically, was that the Druid called more upon the things of the Wild--the animals, plants, and occasionally rocks or weather, of the world--while the Shaman called upon the spirits that represent, empower and are empowered by, the physical things of the world--Grandfather Oak, the Storm Dragon, the Silent Stalker, etc.

(Mechanically, the Druid was a controller--e.g. debuffing/hindering enemies, dispatching "mook" types, altering the terrain, summoning--while the Shaman was a leader--restoring HP, granting saves, facilitating attacks, buffing allies. Both had a bit of conceptual overlap, since (a) they were both Primal classes so their fluff was *meant* to be similar, (b) both had a certain degree of "summoning, Shaman mostly just has the one constant spirit companion, Druid could summon temporary animal allies IIRC?, and (c) because of the shared Primal fluff, both were pretty durable and had a slice of "tanky" ("defender," in technical parlance) ability.)

While I would not be at all surprised that the implementation would differ--after all, "powers" is not really a thing in 5e--I don't see any problem at all with a Shaman class that uses "spirit" magic, and would in fact consider it to be a fairly positive nod toward both the 3e Spirit Shaman and the 4e Shaman, especially if it had a "spirit companion."