D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[Einlanzer0]

Well, like I said before, the witch could probably be a suite of options for the Warlock.

But, as for the base class, it would be the only base class with a built in pet IMO (even the Shaman would likely choose between a pet and something else), would have small overlap with the Artificer, and would be a full caster. Like the other full casters, it would lean pretty strongly on its spell list, including spells made for the class.

I mean, literally all anyone who is curious has to do is google "witch 5e" and see there about a dozen different options showing how much you could potentially do.

To your point - it definitely could be. It could also be a wizard subclass. But neither of those options take the concept far enough for me, personally. There are a few reasons for this. Mostly - the warlock is very DPR-focused while the wizard is a bit more utility focused. I see the witch as more utility focused, making it incongruent with the warlock, but at the same time the flavor and specific features are very different from a wizard's. In some ways it's almost like the flavor of the warlock mixed with the crunch of the wizard. Is that, alone, enough to warrant WotC making it a full class? Probably not. But I also think it means it can't be represented well with a subclass for either wizard or warlock.

Actually, I kind of look at a witch as the primal representative of arcane magic, analogous with a barbarian and a shaman. It might be best described as the Druid to the cleric's wizard. I like the idea of having a full primal suite of classes - barbarian is the lone representative of this in the core classes. This is part of why I like the idea of having both shamans and witches as options representing this.

 

[Oofta]

No, I'm not - because plenty of people agree with me. I'm not going to change every single person's mind. That doesn't mean I'm wrong OR that I'm under any obligation to change my communication style. In fact, I've had several people stop arguing with me - likely because they slowly began to realize I was right, or, at the very least, that they could no longer put forth logical arguments demonstrating otherwise.

Nice try, but it amounts to little more than the same condescension you're accusing me of, which of course is always humorous to see.

Is your position widely supported? I don't see a lot of evidence for it. In addition did it ever occur to you that people just eventually get tired of talking to a brick wall? That the most logical argument boils down to: they are trying to not repeat mistakes made by previous editions? That one of the mistakes they made was umpteen zillion classes which let to a feeling of class bloat and unnecessary complexity?

I disagree with your position and I've explained why. You refuse to listen to advice or feedback so have a good one.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Is your position widely supported? I don't see a lot of evidence for it. In addition did it ever occur to you that people just eventually get tired of talking to a brick wall? That the most logical argument boils down to: they are trying to not repeat mistakes made by previous editions? That one of the mistakes they made was umpteen zillion classes which let to a feeling of class bloat and unnecessary complexity?

I disagree with your position and I've explained why. You refuse to listen to advice or feedback so have a good one.

Yes and every single one of your reasons is basically "I disagree it's needed as a class so it shouldn't be a class." That's not an argument - it doesn't really give me anything to rationally respond to, so I've given up on you.

As for class bloat - I already stated that's a mostly irrational concern because the core of 5e was designed to avoid this (to the extent it's even a problem) through the subclass system, ensuring that most concepts will be developed as subclasses, which I don't have a problem with. Getting the occasional new class doesn't automatically mean we have "a problem with class bloat". That's a silly, asinine argument.

 

[Oofta]

Yes and every single one of your reasons is basically "I disagree it's needed as a class so it shouldn't be a class." That's not an argument.

One last time. Tons of classes just trying to fill every possible need simply leads to bloat, confusion, issues with multi-classing and niche builds that are broken. It was a major mistake of previous editions. A lot of the weight carried by new classes was removed by rules simplification and backgrounds so they aren't as necessary.

With 5E they're limiting to classes that make sense and fill in major gaps. We're not going to have the dozens of classes. We might get a psion. I think the odds of getting anything like your brawler is slim and none and Slim just left town. I think that's a good thing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean, literally all anyone who is curious has to do is google "witch 5e" and see there about a dozen different options showing how much you could potentially do.

To your point - it definitely could be. It could also be a wizard subclass. But neither of those options take the concept far enough for me, personally. There are a few reasons for this. Mostly - the warlock is very DPR-focused while the wizard is a bit more utility focused. I see the witch as more utility focused, making it incongruent with the warlock, but at the same time the flavor and specific features are very different from a wizard's. In some ways it's almost like the flavor of the warlock mixed with the crunch of the wizard. Is that, alone, enough to warrant WotC making it a full class? Probably not. But I also think it means it can't be represented well with a subclass for either wizard or warlock.

Actually, I kind of look at a witch as the primal representative of arcane magic, analogous with a barbarian and a shaman. It might be best described as the Druid to the cleric's wizard. I like the idea of having a full primal suite of classes - barbarian is the lone representative of this in the core classes. This is part of why I like the idea of having both shamans and witches as options representing this.

The Warlock only seems DPR focused, but can be built for fantastic utility. A utility based 1st level ability would help push people toward a utility build.

That said, I say Warlock because you can gear invocations towards witchiness, as well, and even look at new Pact boons if you don’t agree with me on all witches having a familiar.

 

[CleverNickName]

I've always imagined a "witch" class would work best as a rewrite of the Druid. Swap out the Wild Shape ability for some of the Hexblade's abilities, and replace the "Druid Circles" with a witch's "Order" that gives bonus spells but also gives the ability to make potions, perform more powerful hexes, etc., in place of the Circle Features.

There's nothing wrong with other ideas presented here, though. This is just where my imagination went with it.

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

What justification is there for the Sorcerer? Why can't you just have a Wizard subclass with Meta-Magic as it's subclass powers?

What's the Justification for a Cleric? Why can't you just have a White Wizard subclass with bonus spells for the healing/restoration spells, and channel divinity/turn undead as it's subclass powers?

What's the justification for Druid? Why can't you just have a Nature Wizard with wild shape as a subclass feature?

Whats the Justification for a Fighter? Why can't you just have a Wizard subclass with Weapon and Armor proficiency and a Fighting Style at Lvl 2, Extra Attack at level 6 (Improving at 11 and 20), Action Surge at 10, and Second Wind at 14?

I'm of course being facetious, but the argument that a class COULD be rendered at least to some extent as a subclass for an existing class is clearly NOT a good or sufficient argument for not making it a class.

 

[Oofta]

What justification is there for the Sorcerer? Why can't you just have a Wizard subclass with Meta-Magic as it's subclass powers?

What's the Justification for a Cleric? Why can't you just have a White Wizard subclass with bonus spells for the healing/restoration spells, and channel divinity/turn undead as it's subclass powers?

What's the justification for Druid? Why can't you just have a Nature Wizard with wild shape as a subclass feature?

Whats the Justification for a Fighter? Why can't you just have a Wizard subclass with Weapon and Armor proficiency and a Fighting Style at Lvl 2, Extra Attack at level 6 (Improving at 11 and 20), Action Surge at 10, and Second Wind at 14?

I'm of course being facetious, but the argument that a class COULD be rendered at least to some extent as a subclass for an existing class is clearly NOT a good or sufficient argument for not making it a class.

Just because we could create a class is not a justification for making one. In fact, there are several reasons for not creating more classes than are needed.

 

[Parmandur]

What justification is there for the Sorcerer? Why can't you just have a Wizard subclass with Meta-Magic as it's subclass powers?

What's the Justification for a Cleric? Why can't you just have a White Wizard subclass with bonus spells for the healing/restoration spells, and channel divinity/turn undead as it's subclass powers?

What's the justification for Druid? Why can't you just have a Nature Wizard with wild shape as a subclass feature?

Whats the Justification for a Fighter? Why can't you just have a Wizard subclass with Weapon and Armor proficiency and a Fighting Style at Lvl 2, Extra Attack at level 6 (Improving at 11 and 20), Action Surge at 10, and Second Wind at 14?

I'm of course being facetious, but the argument that a class COULD be rendered at least to some extent as a subclass for an existing class is clearly NOT a good or sufficient argument for not making it a class.

Yes, good cases could be made against all of those Classes. How does that help even more tenuous concepts...?

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

Yes, good cases could be made against all of those Classes. How does that help even more tenuous concepts...?

You know what, you've just accepted that Fighter should be a Wizard subclass, so fine, whatever. Clearly one of us is insane but since I'm on cold medicine I'll just assume it's me and go to bed.