D&D 5E So Where my Witches at?

[Faolyn]

Re: spell lists.

One thing I've been sorta working on for psionics is creating a spell list, based heavily on earlier editions' lists of psionic powers. I've converted some old spells to fill in gaps, and have a few more to do. The idea would be is that if you wanted to play a psionicist, you pick a spellcasting class and replace the spell list with the psionic one. Want to play a psionicist that specializes in unearthing mysteries? Try a Knowledge cleric, Lore bard, or Diviner wizard to get the class abilities, but use this new list instead. Want to play a psionic warrior? Go for an Eldritch Knight fighter, a War cleric, any paladin, etc. Reflavor the other abilities as needed. This, of course, is only a stopgap until there are official psionics, but it could work--I haven't had a chance to complete it, let alone test it.

I imagine that you could do the same thing for a witch. What spells would witches have? Make a list of them and use to replace other class lists.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

I’d say, find familiar, polymorph, bless, bane, and a few divination spells, would be the basis for a list of spells you learn as part of the Wizard subclass. I’d give special features tied to find familiar and hex, as well.

Find Familiar would have no cost, and be usable without spending a slot 1/day, and your familiar would gain training in Arcana and the ability to speak common. ie, it could help you do magic stuff outside of combat. It might gain a thing at 6 where it can heal you if you drop to 0hp, disappearing in the process?

For Hex, I’d allow the witch to cause the target to take the damage as a bonus action when you cause the target to make a save and they fail, and when an ally deals damage to it or when it fails an ability check 1/round.

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

Probably more a slippery slope. A later post used the parade of horribles I think (ie, if witch is bad then other terms are also bad).

 

[Guest 6801328]

How about a curse/hex in which the target takes necrotic damage whenever they make an attack roll/ability check/saving throw. Or something of that nature. That feels witchy to me.

Or maybe more witch-doctory or voodoo-y.

 

[Blue Orange]

I think the problem is everyone has the concept but the term is (at least sometimes) problematic, and there's no other term you can sub in that has the same connotations, so everybody makes their own but making an 'official' one is too risky for Wizards. Synonyms are rarely exactly the same in that respect. Occultist? That has more of an academic feel, and the witch is usually someone non-academic. Other things like wizard, sorcerer, warlock, and druid were already taken. (And note that the first three of those were used as 1st edition level titles for the magic-user class.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think the problem is everyone has the concept but the term is (at least sometimes) problematic, and there's no other term you can sub in that has the same connotations, so everybody makes their own but making an 'official' one is too risky for Wizards. Synonyms are rarely exactly the same in that respect. Occultist? That has more of an academic feel, and the witch is usually someone non-academic. Other things like wizard, sorcerer, warlock, and druid were already taken. (And note that the first three of those were used as 1st edition level titles for the magic-user class.)

That's why I think that an oblique name works. The tropes are so well known that everybody will recognize them and say, "Oh, a Witch!"

 

[Benjamin Olson]

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.

D&D characters are rooted in the myth, folklore, literature, and pop culture of human civilization, and human civilization has a dark history. The quasi-mythical 12 peers of France from which we get the term "Paladin" were characters whose claim to the chivalric ideal revolves around their Muslim killing prowess. The term "barbarian", its synonyms, and the concept behind such terms, have been routinely invoked to justify war, genocide, conquest, and slavery from classical times onward. And "I'm not a witch, I'm a warlock" never saved anyone from being burned at the stake.

I wouldn't doubt the ability of anything to cause some sort of backlash in the 21st century. But I don't find it morally problematic to create a witch class, I think handled with even a modicum of sensitivity it would give critics very little to be up in arms over, and I think it is worth doing because there is lots of material to build a unique and evocative D&D class on and it is probably the most ubiquitous fantasy character archetype that the game hasn't explicitly covered.

 

[Guest 6801328]

D&D characters are rooted in the myth, folklore, literature, and pop culture of human civilization, and human civilization has a dark history. The quasi-mythical 12 peers of France from which we get the term "Paladin" were characters whose claim to the chivalric ideal revolves around their Muslim killing prowess. The term "barbarian", its synonyms, and the concept behind such terms, have been routinely invoked to justify war, genocide, conquest, and slavery from classical times onward. And "I'm not a witch, I'm a warlock" never saved anyone from being burned at the stake.

I wouldn't doubt the ability of anything to cause some sort of backlash in the 21st century. But I don't find it morally problematic to create a witch class, I think handled with even a modicum of sensitivity it would give critics very little to be up in arms over, and I think it is worth doing because there is lots of material to build a unique and evocative D&D class on and it is probably the most ubiquitous fantasy character archetype that the game hasn't explicitly covered.

I believe you're missing the point entirely, but whatever.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I believe you're missing the point entirely, but whatever.

Huh. Well I tuned out for a solid 150+ posts in there so I've no doubt there were several things that various people thought were "the point entirely" that I missed out on. I'm pretty okay with that.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Or lore bard, then you can get the spells you want without multiclassing.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I prepared a one shot for witches with 6th level pregens. The pregens were:

• Athanasia, the witch of the wilds (Moon druid, shapeshifting witch)
• Faustus the Demonologist (GOO Pact of the Chain Warlock, "consort with fiends" witch)
• Fiona the Brewmistress (Transmuter Wizard, Celtic-inspired, potions and transformations witch);
• Grandmother Night (Hexblade, shadows, night and terrors witch);
• Lorelei the Enchantress (Divine Soul Sorcerer, mind-controlling vampy witch);
• Teresa the Seer (Lord Bard, prophecy witch);
• Esmeralda (Grassland druid, class nature witch);
• Gerda the Ice Queen (White Dragon Sorcerer, Ice Queen witch);
• Maenor the Keeper of the Seals (Abjuration wizard, not a witch, but I needed someone to tank).

Honorable mention goes to Tristan, Undying Pact of the Chain Warlock, with his familiar (an alebrije), more of a Mexican guide of the dead than a traditional witch.

The witches were around the entire time. But like all good witches should, they prefer not to draw attention to themselves.

Whoah....nine players? That's a huge group.

But I've (also) contemplated a 5e compatible campaign world in which all the player characters are witches, of different flavors. Set in a traditional fairy-tale forest. I think it could be a blast. As a one-time thing, anyway.