D&D 5E 5e witches, your preferred implementation?

[Marandahir]

Here's the scenario all these arguments keep missing:

New player (not a hypothetical -- this is from my own table): "I want to play a Witch."

Me: "Uh, there isn't a Witch, per se, but we can hack one together using Wizard or Druid or Warlock or Sorcerer."

New player, deflating: "Oh, um, never mind."

All of the people saying "we don't need a Witch class, because all of us who don't want one would just use our system mastery to hack one together" aren't getting that you aren't the target audience. The giant world of people who don't play D&D, for whom "Witch" is a much more concrete concept than "Druid" or especially "Cleric," want and expect "Witch" to be a thing in the most popular fantasy RPG around.

If a generally non-offensive Druid can be in the PHB, a generally non-offensive Witch can be. A core class is doable -- there's plenty of mechanical space left in the game for another caster, probably multiple sorts -- but a subclass is undeniably doable, especially if the cross-class subclass system makes it into a future PHB or other book. (And yes, the Witherbloom is a great start at that, but again, when someone says "I want to play a witch," they don't want to be told "just pretend this Witherbloom in a supplement about MTG is a Witch.")

My point was that we need guidance IN THE CHARACTER CREATION SECTION OF THE BOOK so that that new player isn't left deflated.

We need a way to present that witch archetype with the tools already existent, much like how we need to present the Warlord concept.

The term Witch is really popular because it means so many different things. The correct answer of the DM would be to ask "What kind of witch do you want to play?"

And then say "oh, that's called a Druid in this game book, but it's totally the same thing." The book should have that guidance.

What we DON'T need is another class that steps on those classes toes. Maybe in a hypothetical game built from the ground up a Witch class would work, but we're talking about implementation into a roster of current classes where a witch class would just create more confusion regarding the overlap. The classes need to be incredibly distinct.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And so on. If it is possible to officially swap a power source, it goes along way to get a character concept exact.

Power source is not a thing in 5e. You can say that your bard is powered by happy thoughts and mechanically absolutely nothing changes. It is not a rule, it is one fluffbox about how things are in Forgotten Realms.

 

[Marandahir]

Power source is not a thing in 5e. You can say that your bard is powered by happy thoughts and mechanically absolutely nothing changes. It is not a rule, it is one fluffbox about how things are in Forgotten Realms.

Technically it exists in a few non-keywords in the core 5e rules. but they're really not important to the nature of the game, unlike the keyword functionality of the 4e ones.

But that's part of the flexibility of the game and why we have the Path of the Zealot Barbarians now and Divine Soul Sorcerers and Celestial Pact Warlocks. Muddying the water is good when it comes to subclasses.

 

[Cadence]

Here's the scenario all these arguments keep missing:

New player (not a hypothetical -- this is from my own table): "I want to play a Witch."

Me: "Uh, there isn't a Witch, per se, but we can hack one together using Wizard or Druid or Warlock or Sorcerer."

New player, deflating: "Oh, um, never mind."

All of the people saying "we don't need a Witch class, because all of us who don't want one would just use our system mastery to hack one together" aren't getting that you aren't the target audience. The giant world of people who don't play D&D, for whom "Witch" is a much more concrete concept than "Druid" or especially "Cleric," want and expect "Witch" to be a thing in the most popular fantasy RPG around.

If a generally non-offensive Druid can be in the PHB, a generally non-offensive Witch can be. A core class is doable -- there's plenty of mechanical space left in the game for another caster, probably multiple sorts -- but a subclass is undeniably doable, especially if the cross-class subclass system makes it into a future PHB or other book. (And yes, the Witherbloom is a great start at that, but again, when someone says "I want to play a witch," they don't want to be told "just pretend this Witherbloom in a supplement about MTG is a Witch.")

I confess to not reading the entire thread. Does anyone have which post # defines exactly what defines a witch in a way that covers all the tropes so no one is left out?

Would it essentially be a class that could replaces both druid and warlock in some form, expanding on what part of the trope-spaxw they cover, and having them as sub-classes?

 

[Yaarel]

Here's the scenario all these arguments keep missing:

New player (not a hypothetical -- this is from my own table): "I want to play a Witch."

Me: "Uh, there isn't a Witch, per se, but we can hack one together using Wizard or Druid or Warlock or Sorcerer."

New player, deflating: "Oh, um, never mind."

Heh, from my perspective, the solution is, obviously, that you as the DM must build a premade character with all the flavors and mechanics to make the concept work.

Once you get a clear feel for what the player has in mind, it is your responsibility to build it.

And you are the DM, you can tweak stuff.

Does it become apparent that the player is asking for a "Halloween witch"? (Which I suppose ultimately derives from Shakespeare, but is its own archetype.) The build it. You can even be creative like giving a broomstick or a magical hat as a kind of a Find Familiar. Maybe at level 1, the broom can fly by itself, and maybe by level 5, the broom can support a human rider.

You are the DM!

 

[Zaukrie]

Heh, from my perspective, the solution is, obviously, that you as the DM must build a premade character with all the flavors and mechanics to make the concept work.

Once you get a clear feel for what the player has in mind, it is your responsibility to build it.

And you are the DM, you can tweak stuff.

Does it become apparent that the player is asking for a "Halloween witch"? (Which I suppose ultimately derives from Shakespeare, but is its own archetype.) The build it. You can even be creative like giving a broomstick or a magical hat as a kind of a Find Familiar. Maybe at level 1, the broom can fly by itself, and maybe by level 5, the broom can support a human rider.

You are the DM!

I couldn't disagree more that a DM should take on this much work all the time. Certainly not our responsibility.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

You are the DM!

I am running five different campaigns, plus a play by post one.

I don't think it's unreasonable to wish WotC would support one of the most iconic fantasy character types that's been conspicuously missing from the game since 1974.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What we DON'T need is another class that steps on those classes toes. Maybe in a hypothetical game built from the ground up a Witch class would work, but we're talking about implementation into a roster of current classes where a witch class would just create more confusion regarding the overlap. The classes need to be incredibly distinct.

There are a ton of ways to insert more casters in the game without stepping on anyone's toes.

The discussion of a constitution-based caster mentioned earlier (which wouldn't be a standard witch, for the record) is a great example. It's an incredibly common trope in CRPGs and absent in D&D and could be created as a subclass or full class without much trouble.

It's a matter of will, not because it's an especially challenging problem.

 

[Cadence]

I am running five different campaigns, plus a play by post one.

I don't think it's unreasonable to wish WotC would support one of the most iconic fantasy character types that's been conspicuously missing from the game since 1974.

I've been playing since 1981 and never heard a single person ask to play one, so I'm kind of surprised by the outpouring of love. We had several players in 1e want the Bounty Hunter from Dragon, but none the Witch. Anyone have stats on how popular they were in PF when they had their own class?

There are a ton of ways to insert more casters in the game without stepping on anyone's toes.

The discussion of a constitution-based caster mentioned earlier (which wouldn't be a standard witch, for the record) is a great example. It's an incredibly common trope in CRPGs and absent in D&D and could be created as a subclass or full class without much trouble.

It's a matter of will, not because it's an especially challenging problem.

So, what's your write up of Witch that doesn't significantly step on any toes in the PhB?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I've been playing since 1981 and never heard a single person ask to play one, so I'm kind of surprised by the outpouring of love. We had several players in 1e want the Bounty Hunter from Dragon, but none the Witch.

In contrast, my brother rolled up a Bounty Hunter, played him once, and that was it. All of our sample sizes are way too small.

I will note that there are a lot of Witch products on DMs Guild, Drive-Thru RPG and Kickstarter. There's certainly a lot of people perceiving a demand for them.

Anyone ave stats on how popular they were in PF when they had their own class?

Does PF have anything comparable to D&D Beyond? Or do any of the virtual tabletops track how many of a character class are played?

So, what's your write up of Witch that doesn't significantly step on any toes in the PhB?

I'm supposed to be working, but off the top of my head:

1) Full Wisdom-based spellcaster with a unique, mixing enchanting, debuffing, shapechanging, a sprinkling of nature spells, scrying, minor healing spells
2) Find Familiar as a level one freebie, costing no material component for the first familiar they start off with. Material component required after that, so we don't get into the weird strategy of resummoning your familiar over and over again as a tactical measure
3) Robust potion-creation abilities
4) Perhaps a weaker version of Wild Shape
5) Debuffing specialist whose debuffs hit harder, last longer and are harder to resist. This might be as simple as the equivalent of getting Expertise on Debuff DCs. Fighting a witch should mean your barbarian might eventually be crawling over to them, trying to stab them in their black boots
6) The ability to create iconic witch-related magical items, like the Broom of Flying, which I've never seen anyone actually use in preference to the Carpet of Flying

That's just a basic write-up and, although I'm sure it'll be promptly torn apart by folks, it's all I have time for at the moment. While there are currently spellcasters who have access to debuffing, it's generally not the focus of any of them. I've played several CRPGs and MMOs where debuffing has been made extremely strong for certain character classes and it's a very potent approach and has a very different feel from being a blaster or crowd-controlling enchanter.