Quote Originally Posted by T.G. Oskar View Post
Oh, I'll admit - Warshaper is pretty boss, particularly if you had something good to go with it. It's not meant for a primary trick, though; that is, you don't make a build around the Warshaper, but instead use it to enhance a build that relies on shapeshifting. Or at least, that's how I see it - while it has some amazing benefits (+STR/CON, reach, fast healing, immunity to crits and sneak attacks, and of course the extra attack, which could instead allow an existing attack to become more powerful), it was mostly a bunch of solid passive bonuses and one solid source of attack. I could see it on a Cabinet Trickster, though, since between the two you also have the Thought Tricks and whatnot.

However, they're not meant to exist as a class by itself - which is what they did with the PF Shifter. They made an entire class about Wild Shape, but in a way that's all or nothing. It's a cool concept, but not one to fully base a class upon. Now, I'll admit that 5e's Wild Shape is a bit crazy (since it essentially mostly adds your mental attributes to the monster's stat block), but if that's the entire basis for your class, then it's lacking. To put it simply: what would be the subclasses for that class? You could say that you could focus on a specific creature type (one that shifts into Elementals, one that shifts into Celestials, one who shifts into Fiends, etc.), but you'd have to define the basis, and define what other features they get. That's in a way what PF tried to do with their own shapeshfiting class, and it ended up weaker than they thought, because while you had a lot of uses of wildshaping, you'd end up somewhat similar to 3.5's Monk where you became super-dependent on magic items, instead of being the opposite. Sure, you can fly, but only if you turn into a Small creature, which isn't meant for battle.

That's why I said that it's better as a subclass, and as you mentioned - Prestige Classes were the most efficient ways to do so. I could add the Shapeshifter from Oriental Adventures which was a way to grant Wild Shape in a certain way, but they had to be tied to a class first. As it stands, the Path of the Beast for the Barbarian is the closest thing, since while it doesn't grant full shapeshifting (it's more akin to a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde thing, or even a Bruce Banner/Hulk thing, except both sides are feral instead of one), it still is explicitly fluffed as one. I could see a Barbarian going Bear Warrior, though. In a way, Circle of the Moon Druids also explicitly deal with shapeshifting, in that they improve the shapeshifting abilities of the Druid.

But in short - it's ill-fitting as a class by itself, and there's evidence to it. Bear Warrior was close, but MoMF required previous spellcasting, and Warshaper was only 5 levels long and a buff rather than a build-maker. I could see it as a subclass...and Path of the Beast and Circle of the Moon already deal with that.
Bolded for emphasis. The second one (required spellcasting) is incorrect: you could use the spell-less ranger variant, with the wild shape alternative class feature, and you were a martial based MoMF from level 6 onwards (and a shape shifter from 5). And it really is doable in the 5e framework, thinking about it. Lets call is "shape shifter" class (and let somebody else come up with a cool name), give it mechanics similar to wildshape (over the levels: turn into creatures with more HD, and with stronger abilities), and give it for example subclasses 'infiltrater' (focussing on turning into other humanoids), and monsterman (more melee focus, turn into giants and the like).

Again, too complicated. While it wouldn't need to be mechanically complicated - you could make it so that each Vestige acts like a subclass, and every day you essentially change your subclass - it could be a nightmare for book-keeping, which is something that would drive away some of the people that got into the game for its simplicity. Even suggesting the idea makes for a radical departure of the way classes are built in 5e. Not that it wouldn't be cool to see the Binder return, but...heck, even in 4e, it was an alternate class for the Warlock.

(And yes, I specifically chose Zceryll because it literally changed the power level of the class. By certain levels, some vestiges were just not useful - sure, you could combine, say, Andromalius and Savnok and Tenebrous and have a sort of Paladin...but who seriously uses...say, the architect vestige whose name escapes me? And that wasn't a low-level vestige, that's a 5th to 7th level one. Yes, it allowed you to be a little bit of everything, and could make for cool combinations, but not all of them were good enough.)
Don't want to derail the thread by focussing too much on a rarther obscure 3.5 class, but 1) you are right about Zceryll, and how powerful it is - but the class was totally viable without it, and was interesting because of combining the different vesitiges. The power level isn't a problem anyway, cause that changes anyway when adjusting things to 5e. And given how 5e handles summoning, this in't one of the most logical vestiges to use, if they would ever make the class (which I think they prolly wont, alas).

Again, it really shouldn't be too hard to make it a 5e class, thinking about it. Basic d8 simple weapons light armor 2 skills, cha and con saves, and from their get access to different vestiges at different levels, stronger later, and ability to combine them later. Replace 1/5 rounds abilities with short rest abilities, and refit abilities to the 5e framework. Subclasses could be pretty obvious: 1) dedicated binder (almost all prestige classes in ToM requirered you to choose a favoured vestige), 2) Anima mage (1/3 caster, compared to EK or AT in 5e), and maybe a Autmenter(focussing on the pact augmentation mechanic, seperating it from the class as a whole to avoid a too complicated class).

It really shouldn't be more complicated than a 5e artificer or warlock, that need to juggle infusions/invocations, spells, (optional) feats and other class features.