D&D 5E So Where my Witches at?

[Remathilis]

Back on topic, I've been thinking about this:

You can easily make a passable witch...or shaman, or occultist, or witch doctor, or whatever...simply by choosing appropriate spells. Want a Disney witch? Use find familiar for your black cat, cast polymorph a lot, only cast fly if you are holding a broom, use a wand as your spellcasting focus, etc. If there's some special you especially want...say, bane...you can either multiclass or use a feat.

Now, I like a really good subclass as much as the next person, but, really, what's the problem with this approach? (I have my own answers to that question, but I'm curious what others will say.)

Broadly, nothing. You can build nearly every archetype in all of fantasy using the champion fighter, thief rogue, life cleric and evoker wizard and the right selection of refluffing, spell and equipment selection, and multi-classing or feat choice. But the purpose of the subclass system was to give mechanical support to popular archetypes like necromancers, swashbucklers, cavaliers, or warpriests without jumping through hoops. It's the same concept as Pathfinder's Archetypes, 3es Prestige classes, or 4e's paragon paths. People like their mechanical support of concepts, and I don't see where adding more support is a BAD thing...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Back on topic, I've been thinking about this:

You can easily make a passable witch...or shaman, or occultist, or witch doctor, or whatever...simply by choosing appropriate spells. Want a Disney witch? Use find familiar for your black cat, cast polymorph a lot, only cast fly if you are holding a broom, use a wand as your spellcasting focus, etc. If there's some special you especially want...say, bane...you can either multiclass or use a feat.

Now, I like a really good subclass as much as the next person, but, really, what's the problem with this approach? (I have my own answers to that question, but I'm curious what others will say.)

The main issue is that a lot of the spells I’d want for such a character can’t be gained by a Wizard without extensive multiclassing.

That and, I don’t buy any argument that there is a threshold of “I can’t make it in the system at all” before a new option is appropriate.

A class or subclass would do the job better than multiclassing or feats.

 

[Guest 6801328]

P.S. I'll add that don't think there's a problem with using the word "witch" in this thread (unless I hear persuasively otherwise) and I would buy content that used the term, either 3rd party or from WotC. But given the context in which the word is used present day as a pejorative (I mean, FFS @Remathilis just look at the title you gave the thread) I would advise large companies who want to appeal to a large, disparate audience to avoid the word if possible.

And, no, it doesn't have to be a case of "giving in to social media pressure" or whatever. It could just be about doing the right thing. About saying, "Hey, this word really bothers some people. Not all, but some. Why alienate them if we don't have to?"

 

[Guest 6801328]

The main issue is that a lot of the spells I’d want for such a character can’t be gained by a Wizard without extensive multiclassing.

That and, I don’t buy any argument that there is a threshold of “I can’t make it in the system at all” before a new option is appropriate.

A class or subclass would do the job better than multiclassing or feats.

Sure, but what is the threshold? What is the actual design goal?

A perfectly valid reason, of course, is that if breadth of spell selection is part of the power of a class, then narrowing that scope also limits power. So asking somebody to do that voluntarily, without some kind of compensation, is asking people to sacrifice mechanics for role playing. And while it's fine to do that, it's even better if it's not necessary.

For my part, I think the main thing I want out of subclasses is mechanics which change gameplay in a way that is evocative of the concept. So, for a witch subclass of Wizard, an example (an illustrative example; not necessarily the best example) might be that you always know the spell polymorph, and you can cast it once per long rest without using spell slots. The impact on gameplay is that you end up casting polymorph more than a regular Wizard, both because you have one free use and because you don't have to make any tradeoffs to have it memorized.

An even better example, though, might be the same thing but for a spell that is less frequently chosen. scrying, maybe? Then even if you use it only 1/day, it becomes distinctive because most wizards don't do that.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The main issue with just being a Wizard would probably be the lack of having Hex and other "cursing" spells.

Yeah, that's fair. And, if that particular feature is important to you, you could always use Warlock as the chassis (which, in all honesty, is exactly how I've planned out the witch I want to play some day.) Sure, you then give up some other things, but I don't think the goal should be to make it possible to include every single witchy stereotype. Ultimately we've got to pick the subset that is more important to us. Even though that list will vary.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The argument below is roughly in the same ballpark, but yeah those two are definitely at the top of the list of useless arguments.

Find me a suggestion, by anyone in this thread, that such a thing is on the table, and I’ll consider taking this rhetorical tactic you’re employing seriously.

Is it technically a slippery slope argument, or a parade of horribles argument?

 

[Remathilis]

P.S. I'll add that don't think there's a problem with using the word "witch" in this thread (unless I hear persuasively otherwise) and I would by content that used the term, either 3rd party or from WotC. But given the context in which the word is used present day as a pejorative (I mean, FFS @Remathilis just look at the title you gave the thread) I would advise large companies who want to appeal to a large, disparate audience to avoid the word if possible.

And, no, it doesn't have to be a case of "giving in to social media pressure" or whatever. It could just be about doing the right thing. About saying, "Hey, this word really bothers some people. Not all, but some. Why alienate them if we don't have to?"

To be perfectly frank, I don't believe the term "witch" is so toxic that it cannot exist in the space of the game, especially in a heroic (PC option) situation. If witch cannot exist as a concept due to its linguistic baggage, there is a whole lot of D&D language that needs to go along with it. I mean, another term for a nagging woman is a battle axe, but I'm pretty sure no one gets offended looking at the weapons table. Most of the time you hear "witch" as a pejorative, it's a censored substitute for its B-lettered rhyming word and often lacks the punch of its more offensive cousin. (I admit, I opted for a humorous play on that in the title). I don't think presenting a PC option based around the imagery of the classic Halloween witch would offend anyone who wasn't looking for the opportunity to be offended. There is some obvious areas D&D can become more inclusive, but I really doubt a PC witch option would cause any sort of backlash.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Yeah, that's fair. And, if that particular feature is important to you, you could always use Warlock as the chassis (which, in all honesty, is exactly how I've planned out the witch I want to play some day.) Sure, you then give up some other things, but I don't think the goal should be to make it possible to include every single witchy stereotype. Ultimately we've got to pick the subset that is more important to us. Even though that list will vary.

It is important to me. I think a base "Witch/Occultist" class should include a lot of the common "witch-y" themed spells from any spell list they need. Bane, Bless, Hex, Bestow/Remove Curse, Enhance Ability, Reincarnate, Enthrall, Dissonant Whispers, Spirit Shroud, and Tasha's Hideous Laughter are some examples of spells that should IMO be on a Witch/Occultist spell list. No current class has all of those spells. It's a combination of Bard, Druid, Wizard, and Warlock spells.

 

[Remathilis]

It is important to me. I think a base "Witch/Occultist" class should include a lot of the common "witch-y" themed spells from any spell list they need. Bane, Bless, Hex, Bestow/Remove Curse, Enhance Ability, Reincarnate, Enthrall, Dissonant Whispers, Spirit Shroud, and Tasha's Hideous Laughter are some examples of spells that should IMO be on a Witch/Occultist spell list. No current class has all of those spells. It's a combination of Bard, Druid, Wizard, and Warlock spells.

Even if there is no class that provides those exact spells, the ability for a class to pick up similar abilities is equally viable. For example, a witch doesn't necessarily need the spell "hex", but it does need some support for the ability to curse opponents as a way to debuff/enfeeble them. Certainly a new class could just pick all the appropriate spells for its spell list, but if you aren't keen on a new class, there are still ways to invoke the feel of those spells without necessarily adding a dozen new spells to an existing classes spell list...

 

[Guest 6801328]

Even if there is no class that provides those exact spells, the ability for a class to pick up similar abilities is equally viable. For example, a witch doesn't necessarily need the spell "hex", but it does need some support for the ability to curse opponents as a way to debuff/enfeeble them. Certainly a new class could just pick all the appropriate spells for its spell list, but if you aren't keen on a new class, there are still ways to invoke the feel of those spells without necessarily adding a dozen new spells to an existing classes spell list...

Yeah, totally agree.

In terms of getting spells or spell-like abilities from across class lists, the tried-and-true solution is the good old "additional spells known" subclass feature.

But in many cases, a class feature that accomplishes a similar result can be even better. And hex is a great example. I mean, really, think about what the spell actually does. The primary benefit increases your (and only your) damage against the target, which isn't how I envision a witch hex. The secondary benefit is more flavorful, but of fairly narrow utility. If I were a witch I would want to be able to cast hexes on people, but not that particular hex.

Maybe one that allowed me to use my reaction to impose disadvantage on a d20 roll? Yeah, I'd take that.