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

[Yaarel]

I see we're arguing in circles. So, I'll be clear.

I want a witch class that is encouraged, mechanically, to do witchy things like brew potions in cauldrons, subtly curse people, and cast a variety of subtle spells that manipulate and enchant others.

I have a Magic-User (Wizard) class which is mechanically encouraged to study magic tomes during occasional rest periods, acquire new spells by whatever means, and not wear armor or use weapons.

I have a Fighter class which is mechanically encouraged to wield weapons and use tactics in battle, wearing the best armor they can get.

I have a Thief (Rogue) class which is mechanically encouraged to be sneaky, learn a wide variety of trades, and get out of the thick of things.

I have a Warlock class which is mechanically encouraged to blast magic laser beams at first opportunity and cast a few very flashy spells as soon as a threat appears. I guess that's exactly what I wanted to begin with. I'm glad you guys kept just telling me, "The warlock is exactly the class you were looking for all along;" because, obviously that's the perfect implementation.

A Psion Telepath might be the kind of witch you are looking for, with nonflashy mind-altering spells, and perhaps objects infused with psionic intention. Dabble in Prescience to alter futures into blessings and curses.

 

[Shardstone]

A Psion Telepath might be the kind of witch you are looking for, with nonflashy mind-altering spells, and perhaps objects infused with psionic intention. Dabble in Prescience to alter futures into blessings and curses.

No, what he's looking for is a Witch class.

 

[Remathilis]

Subclasses do a lot of work in this edition, and people seem to just ignore their existence. They literally just released Witherbloom, a new super witchy subclass that can be applied to two differnt classes, to warlock for obvious reasons and to druid for more wiccan/celtic style witch. And even if this exact subclass wouldn't perfectly capture all your witchy needs, others could easily be created. One of the big strengths is the classes being very customsable, so there is no need to create a huge amount of new full classes. There are already six main caster classes in the game, there is no need to add more.

Subclasses have one major downside; they are purely additive and not transforming. You can, for example add some magic to a fighter or add cleric spells to a sorcerer, but you can't remove a fighter's weapon and armor proficiencies or swap the sorcerer's spell list for the clerics, etc. You can't escape the identity of the base class with just 4-5 class features.

The inability to edit spell lists in particular limits what can be done just using subclasses. In Particular, it has been the thorn in getting a "psion" subclass to work as none of the base class spell lists "work" at doing what a psion does. In the end, Psionic fireball just doesn't feel Psionic enough.

Same goes for the witch I guess. The classic idea of a witch borrows from the druid, warlock and wizard schools but lacks the flashier stuff. For me, it wasn't a big deal to put some witchy powers on a wizard as an alternative to the Warlock I could see a druid version in a similar vein. But some want a more curated approach esp with spells.

I don't begrudge anyone looking for a 3pp witch class, but I would have been happy with a subclass alternative.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Subclasses have one major downside; they are purely additive and not transforming. You can, for example add some magic to a fighter or add cleric spells to a sorcerer, but you can't remove a fighter's weapon and armor proficiencies or swap the sorcerer's spell list for the clerics, etc. You can't escape the identity of the base class with just 4-5 class features.

The inability to edit spell lists in particular limits what can be done just using subclasses. In Particular, it has been the thorn in getting a "psion" subclass to work as none of the base class spell lists "work" at doing what a psion does. In the end, Psionic fireball just doesn't feel Psionic enough.

Same goes for the witch I guess. The classic idea of a witch borrows from the druid, warlock and wizard schools but lacks the flashier stuff. For me, it wasn't a big deal to put some witchy powers on a wizard as an alternative to the Warlock I could see a druid version in a similar vein. But some want a more curated approach esp with spells.

I don't begrudge anyone looking for a 3pp witch class, but I would have been happy with a subclass alternative.

I mean this is issue with many existing subclasses already, clerics for example get access to a huge selection of spells, not all of which will make sense for all gods. At least with classes who have to choose the known spells you can simply not choose the ones that go against your theme. And frankly, I don't see a reason why a subclass, especially for classes that get it on level one, couldn't remove things. No subclass (IIRC) does this, but they could. "Replace spells A, B, C, and D with spells E, F, G and H on your class's spell list." I was totally planning to write completely bespoke associated spell lists for all the different gods in my setting, but no one actually wanted to play a cleric, so it wouldn't have been worth the effort. (Might still do it at some point.)

But I'm not sure this sort of thing is even necessary, except as houserules for specific settings to have a more tightly limited themes. Perhaps someone sees their psion more as a pyrokinetic (a 'real' psychic power) so they take the fireball, and someone could want to have a more blasty witch who flies around on their bloom and shoots lightning.

 

[cbwjm]

WotC have already brought out optional replacement features, no reason why a subclass couldn't do the same. You could even lock in features if you intend to take a specific subclass, like a fighter starting with a couple cantrips at 1st level because they intend to become an eldritch knight at 3rd

 

[Zaukrie]

Subclasses have one major downside; they are purely additive and not transforming. You can, for example add some magic to a fighter or add cleric spells to a sorcerer, but you can't remove a fighter's weapon and armor proficiencies or swap the sorcerer's spell list for the clerics, etc. You can't escape the identity of the base class with just 4-5 class features.

The inability to edit spell lists in particular limits what can be done just using subclasses. In Particular, it has been the thorn in getting a "psion" subclass to work as none of the base class spell lists "work" at doing what a psion does. In the end, Psionic fireball just doesn't feel Psionic enough.

Same goes for the witch I guess. The classic idea of a witch borrows from the druid, warlock and wizard schools but lacks the flashier stuff. For me, it wasn't a big deal to put some witchy powers on a wizard as an alternative to the Warlock I could see a druid version in a similar vein. But some want a more curated approach esp with spells.

I don't begrudge anyone looking for a 3pp witch class, but I would have been happy with a subclass alternative.

This. So much this. And, clearly, as you point out, not just for a class or two...but the whole design.
MUCH SMALLER spell lists that "everyone" has access to would be good, with subclasses doing addition from there....but that's not what people want. At least, not most people. Hence, we get what we got.

 

[Remathilis]

This. So much this. And, clearly, as you point out, not just for a class or two...but the whole design.
MUCH SMALLER spell lists that "everyone" has access to would be good, with subclasses doing addition from there....but that's not what people want. At least, not most people. Hence, we get what we got.

I think it was a compromise of conflicting design goals. Some Subclasses were designed to be achetypes/kits/PrCs/Paragon Paths for the existing classes, only adding a dose of flavor or focus. However, they also began using them as class-replacement tools, which worked to varying degrees of success. I think few people were unsatisfied for the wizard/illusionist or rogue/assassin replacing the old 1e classes, but battlemaster didn't quite scratch the "warlord" itch and people have lamented Avenger, Shaman, and Warden all getting only partial conversions as subs. The vehement opposition to wizard/artificer is what got us the 20-level class in Eberron today. I still hope a psion is possible, but for me, witch is good enough as a subclass (considering warlock does share conceptual space with it already).

 

[Remathilis]

WotC have already brought out optional replacement features, no reason why a subclass couldn't do the same. You could even lock in features if you intend to take a specific subclass, like a fighter starting with a couple cantrips at 1st level because they intend to become an eldritch knight at 3rd

The key has been they have been optional changes. So far, no subclass has forced a change to the base class, only added to it. So, for example a witch subclass can't remove a wizard's access to magic missile or fireball in exchange for hex and conjure animals; it can only add those two options and hope the PC picks them instead of those classic wizard evocations.

In short, a subclass can't overwrite what the base class is already doing, which limits its ability to curate extremely specific spell lists.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The key has been they have been optional changes. So far, no subclass has forced a change to the base class, only added to it. So, for example a witch subclass can't remove a wizard's access to magic missile or fireball in exchange for hex and conjure animals; it can only add those two options and hope the PC picks them instead of those classic wizard evocations.

Why would it need to? Why should it force the character into some super specific mould? With for example is massively nebulous and broad concept. If the player feels that those spells suit their character, they can take them. And if there are some spells you want the subclass to absolutely have, make them bonus spells that they just get. Witherblood does this.

In short, a subclass can't overwrite what the base class is already doing, which limits its ability to curate extremely specific spell lists.

I mean it could. None currently does, but they could.

 

[Remathilis]

Why would it need to? Why should it force the character into some super specific mould? With for example is massively nebulous and broad concept. If the player feels that those spells suit their character, they can take them. And if there are some spells you want the subclass to absolutely have, make them bonus spells that they just get. Witherblood does this.

With witch, I actually don't care. I think the concept is best handled with subclasses for wizard and druid alongside the warlock. (Hmmm... three faces). In the broader sense though, it makes it harder to have X class emulate Y class (such as wizard trying to emulate the psion) which does make a case for new twenty level caster classes with specific spell lists. It's a funky quirk of subclass design that makes them not suited for all potential new spellcaster designs; sometimes a new base class might be necessary (see: artificer).

 

[Yaarel]

Conceptually, everything a Bard can do, a "Halloween witch" can also do. Including curses, enchanting songs, buffs, shapeshift, healing, etcetera.

A Bard can easily be the primary class for a Witch archetype.

The subclass can add potions and cauldrons as an art, known spells like Find Familiar, Fly, and perhaps a low-level spell or feature to make a staff or broom fly, as a kind of animated object.

The potion feature might be understood as a book of potions with recipes.

It probably isnt even necessary to swap out any Bard abilities, but that is possible too.

The Bard excels at subtle magic.

 

[cbwjm]

The key has been they have been optional changes. So far, no subclass has forced a change to the base class, only added to it. So, for example a witch subclass can't remove a wizard's access to magic missile or fireball in exchange for hex and conjure animals; it can only add those two options and hope the PC picks them instead of those classic wizard evocations.

In short, a subclass can't overwrite what the base class is already doing, which limits its ability to curate extremely specific spell lists.

Sure it can, just because they haven't done it yet doesn't meant the designers won't in the future. All you need to do is say something like "This ability replaces wildshape" when you pick up the subclass. Any ability gained at the subclass level would be fair game. Spell lists could easily be changed for sorcerers, warlocks, and clerics at 1st level based on the subclass.

 

[Einlanzer0]

edit: accidental dup.

 

[Einlanzer0]

My favorite is a homebrew "Occultist" class that contains concepts for various primal archetypes in its subclasses including shamans, witches, and oracles. All of these concepts blend arcane and divine within a primal theme, which opens up tons of player options without class bloat and provides a nice analogue for the Barbarian. The truth is I think it makes a better fit for a core class than many of the existing core classes that could be redone as subclasses.

I also strongly oppose the idea that reflavoring existing classes is better than creating new ones. This simply does not work very well - there's a shared knowledge of what every class represents in terms of its themes and mechanics. "Refluffing" is not a simple thing to do and it just leads to cognitive dissonance. It also complicates the hell out of things like subclass choice.

 

[Einlanzer0]

The argument that we can't want new things because we can make half-assed version of those things with the current set of rules is such a non-argument. I don't understand it. Everyone here acknowledges we can cobble together some kind of mess and call it a witch or warlord. Why do people act like we're so absurd for wanting a class that fits our needs instead of having to stitch together a Frankenstein golem? Isn't 5E all about being simple and streamlining? Nothing says streamlining like me having to take 5 different classes to make up what I want for once concept.

You are 100% correct. Frankly, it's a hivemind problem and it turns into a debate in every single thread like this, which is absurd.

That's not to mention the idea that every new concept should be done as a subclass just leads to subclass bloat, which after a point, gets even worse than class bloat as it just presents an overwhelming # of options after you've already made your class decision. At least class bloat can be more easily ignored. I would argue with Crawford directly about this if I was given the opportunity.

Literally the only thing that is needed to justify a new class is if the theme is sufficiently developed to support it. It doesn't even matter if it borrows elements from other classes or lacks highly unique mechanics.

 

[Sithlord]

My favorite is a homebrew "Occultist" class that contains concepts for various primal archetypes in its subclasses including shamans, witches, and oracles. All of these concepts blend arcane and divine within a primal theme, which opens up tons of player options without class bloat and provides a nice analogue for the Barbarian. The truth is I think it makes a better fit for a core class than many of the existing core classes that could be redone as subclasses.

I also strongly oppose the idea that reflavoring existing classes is better than creating new ones. This simply does not work very well - there's a shared knowledge of what every class represents in terms of its themes and mechanics. "Refluffing" is not a simple thing to do and it just leads to cognitive dissonance. It also complicates the hell out of things like subclass choice.

Impossible to make a game with a class for every concept that a player might have. I see threads for so many. I think they thing is to play a class based on how d&d works, not Harry Potter, not game of thrones, not Artemis fowl, or wheel of time. Although I love the 3E wheel of time rpg.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Impossible to make a game with a class for every concept that a player might have. I see threads for so many. I think they thing is to play a class based on how d&d works, not Harry Potter, not game of thrones, not Artemis fowl, or wheel of time. Although I love the 3E wheel of time rpg.

Of course that would be impossible. That's not what anyone is trying to do. Instead, people are taking note of well-established concepts that are missing or really refined concepts that can't be approximated well by existing classes.

There's no rational reason to act like there's anything wrong with that. The 12 classes we have in the PHB are somewhat arbitrary and there's room for more. I have 5 legal homebrew classes in my campaigns, which IMO rounds out the options in the PHB nicely.

 

[Sithlord]

Of course that would be impossible. That's not what anyone is trying to do. Instead, people are looking for creative ways to play concepts that are very refined in their heads but can't be approximated very well with existing classes. There's no rational reason to act like there's anything wrong with that. I have 5 legal homebrew classes in my campaigns, which IMO rounds out the options in the PHB nicely.

Yeah. This is where I disagree. I think players needs to look at existing rules and create their concept around that. Although they are free to make up their own rules or use a third party. My opinion is if you go into a game whining about the rules not allowing your character concept then you are the problem player.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Yeah. This is where I disagree. I think players needs to look at existing rules and create their concept around that. Although they are free to make up their own rules or use a third party. My opinion is if you go into a game whining about the rules not allowing your character concept then you are the problem player.

So what about me enjoying fleshing out concepts as new classes for my world as a DM? Or people just generally discussing these things on the board?

What exactly is so wrong about that that you feel the need to naysay it in a discussion instead of just ignoring it?

 

[Garthanos]

Although I love the 3E wheel of time rpg.

I have that one. IMHO , it just felt like they were crushing WOT magic into D&D form and does not feel right, but they did give it a shot and it could have been worse.