Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
THAT's who I was thinking of on the other thread. There are times when the RSS feed of his blog is nothing but witches all the way down.Tim Brannan's webpage has more witches than you can shake a +5 broom at:
![]()
THAT's who I was thinking of on the other thread. There are times when the RSS feed of his blog is nothing but witches all the way down.Tim Brannan's webpage has more witches than you can shake a +5 broom at:
![]()
But an "ugly" witch is terrifying and fills people with Fear, which is also a Charisma thing (Intimidate) and a Bard thing.I dunno. Bards are supposed to be charismatic, and in many cases the witch is an ugly (this is a big part of many tales), marginalized outsider.
This gets us pretty close to Granny Weatherwax, whom I'd argue is probably what many folks are thinking of when they say D&D needs a "witch" class.From what I've seen the witch is usually somewhere between a druid and an enchanter-subclass wizard--outdoor-focused, some healing, lots of debuffs particularly of the mental variety.
I have not seen the Complete WItch, but I have heard good reviews. Based on the reviews that I have heard (most notably by Timothy Brannan), I included it in a list of witch classess to check out that I was putting together as you made your post.I really like Mage Hand Press’s witch class ( Witch )
It’s a full caster with a familiar that’s focused on debuffs. It has some elements that remind me of my limited understanding of PF’s witch, and it does some things differently.
Personally, I would like to see a witch class and a shaman class replace the druid, but I agree with the rest of what you wrote about the witch should be a class.From a game design standpoint, "witch" occupies a much clearer conceptual space than "sorcerer" or "warlock" does and is more immediately familiar and understandable to a new player and the general public than almost any other class. (The general public will give you a blank stare when you mention "cleric" or "druid," for example.)
It might be that witches should have been introduced decades ago, and they've been elbowed out of the picture by this point, but they're arguably one of the biggest concepts in fantasy pop culture that doesn't have a clear specific analogue in D&D. (And no, "you can play it if you take something named something else and then adjust it in several ways a newbie wouldn't know how to do" isn't the same thing.)
For myself, I would prefer it be either a core class (replacing the sorcerer, perhaps, which has really lost a lot of its reason for being in 5E, with the wizard and warlock dividing up its 3E role) or as a PHB-level subclass of either the wizard, warlock or druid.
Yeah, Tim has written a ton of Witch classes for OSR games and reviewed Witch classes for various editions of D&D. In a post downthread from your post( and upthread from this reply), I mentioned Tim and some of the 5e Witch classes that he reviewed on his website, drivethrurpg, and DMsGuild, and gave top ratings.There was this whole thread discussing witches, along with why they never make it into official lore.
It was in Dragon mags 5, 20, 43, and 114 at least, it was used as a sample 'variant spell list' in the 3e DMG, and in Pathfinder as a core class, and I remember at least four d20 treatments of it (Citizen Games' "The Way of the Witch", Mongoose's "The Quintessential Witch", Green Ronin's "The Witch's Handbook", and The Le Games' "Unorthodox Witches"). There was a version of it in the Palladium RPG, an indie modern RPG called Witchcraft by C.J. Carella, the Verbena in Mage: the Ascension (and its possibly more relevant Dark Ages version) would certainly count, there's a witch class among many others in Shadow of the Demon Lord, and you could even count the Buffy RPG. So the topic's been popular over the years.
Tim Brannan's webpage has more witches than you can shake a +5 broom at:
![]()
I'll second the recommendation for MHP's Complete Witch, it's my preferred option in my games.I really like Mage Hand Press’s witch class ( Witch )
It’s a full caster with a familiar that’s focused on debuffs. It has some elements that remind me of my limited understanding of PF’s witch, and it does some things differently.
D&D has had a history of doing different things to get a witch concept character, often creating specific casting classes and sometimes just using existing classes and flavoring.
Pathfinder 1e had a witch class that was an arcane full caster that made pacts with a mysterious themed patron, gained specific witchy powers, and used their familiars as spellbooks.
In using my homebrew mashup setting part of it includes the Pathfinder Golarion world with the land of Irrisen, a norse area conquered by Baba Yaga who set her daughters up to be witch tyrants for a century each then to be replaced by a new daughter, and the ruling class of the country are specifically winter witches, many of whom are descendants of Baba Yaga (the current ruler is winter witch very much in the form of Narnia's White Witch).
I could see doing 5e versions of the Pathfinder witches as 5e core classes (warlock, wizard, sorcerer, and even druid could fit well).
I expect there are a number of OGL or DMs Guild products that do specific new classes or subclasses or feat options to get a witch concept.
I also expect there are a number of NPC or monster stat block options that could be appropriate too.
What have you used to get a 5e witch feel and what are your preferred implementations?
It feels like most of the arcane classes in D&D show up together in the thesaurus (is that where Gygax got the M. User level titles?). D&D seems ti have decided to establish "Wizard" as roughly a caster who gets spells from studying, a "Sorcerer" as one who gets spells by right of bloodline, and a "Druid" as a natural/elemental caster that isn't just a priest of the nature gods.From a game design standpoint, "witch" occupies a much clearer conceptual space than "sorcerer" or "warlock" does and is more immediately familiar and understandable to a new player and the general public than almost any other class. (The general public will give you a blank stare when you mention "cleric" or "druid," for example.)
It might be that witches should have been introduced decades ago, and they've been elbowed out of the picture by this point, but they're arguably one of the biggest concepts in fantasy pop culture that doesn't have a clear specific analogue in D&D. (And no, "you can play it if you take something named something else and then adjust it in several ways a newbie wouldn't know how to do" isn't the same thing.)
For myself, I would prefer it be either a core class (replacing the sorcerer, perhaps, which has really lost a lot of its reason for being in 5E, with the wizard and warlock dividing up its 3E role) or as a PHB-level subclass of either the wizard, warlock or druid.