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

[Sithlord]

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?

Did ya not read the post about creating your own instead of whining about it. I was all for that

 

[Garthanos]

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.

Intriguing...

 

[Remathilis]

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.

On the one hand, I agree; too many people, for reasons I can't always fathom, want to constrict the options available in the game. Not only do they want a prohibition on adding any new classes like artificer or psion, but they also often want the current class list cut by 1/2 to 2/3s of the current PHB.

That said, some concepts don't really warrant more than a subclass. Samurai, assassin, swashbuckler, and most gish builds really don't need more than a good subclass to get the essence of and the old 20-level versions of those classes were often a waste being little more than watered-down or hodgepodge mixes of current classes anyway.

I've looked a few 20 level witch classes, and the only one I really liked was Zarieth's version. I am just as happy with a sub to realize the concept as well. But I too get annoyed that D&D is one of the few games that people want things cut from rather than expanded upon.

 

[RealAlHazred]

That said, some concepts don't really warrant more than a subclass. Samurai, assassin, swashbuckler, and most gish builds really don't need more than a good subclass to get the essence of and the old 20-level versions of those classes were often a waste being little more than watered-down or hodgepodge mixes of current classes anyway.

I've looked a few 20 level witch classes, and the only one I really liked was Zarieth's version. I am just as happy with a sub to realize the concept as well. But I too get annoyed that D&D is one of the few games that people want things cut from rather than expanded upon.

I can see this argument. I see "full Assassin" classes and "full Eldritch Knight" classes and they feel flat. But for the witch, I feel like Zarieth's version, the Mage Hand Press version, and Walrock Homebrew's witch are all good 5E implementations. And I wouldn't want a new witch class for my home game if it was based on, say, the Wheel of Time series. Or Middle Earth. Those settings don't need the class. But for a fairy tale setting I feel it's necessary.

 

[Einlanzer0]

On the one hand, I agree; too many people, for reasons I can't always fathom, want to constrict the options available in the game. Not only do they want a prohibition on adding any new classes like artificer or psion, but they also often want the current class list cut by 1/2 to 2/3s of the current PHB.

That said, some concepts don't really warrant more than a subclass. Samurai, assassin, swashbuckler, and most gish builds really don't need more than a good subclass to get the essence of and the old 20-level versions of those classes were often a waste being little more than watered-down or hodgepodge mixes of current classes anyway.

I've looked a few 20 level witch classes, and the only one I really liked was Zarieth's version. I am just as happy with a sub to realize the concept as well. But I too get annoyed that D&D is one of the few games that people want things cut from rather than expanded upon.

I don't disagree, and that's more or less what I meant when I used the qualifier of a theme supporting a full class. There is definitely some subjectivity with that, but a general rule of thumb is - a.) is it common in whatever world you're playing in, and b.) is it a "large" enough concept that you can quickly devise a list of four or five subclass ideas with a reasonable amount of distinction between them?

There are many concepts that pass this litmus test easily, including psions, witches, shamans, and scholars. And many other concepts could easily replace and incorporate a core class, such as a less-ki oriented brawler/pugilist class that includes monk options among its subclasses, or a robed "wizard" style priest class that includes the core cleric among its subclass options.

Some of this I would argue they didn't do a good enough job "walking back" to broaden themes of existing classes enough to fill all design spaces with subclasses. Clerics and Druids are both great examples. All in all, the 12 classes we have are arbitrary with their history in D&D being the only real argument for having them over many other ideas. There's plenty of design space for other full classes and I hope to see WotC do more on occasion.

 

[Celtic-Knight]

A Wizard subclass would be my preferred style, right now playing a War mage reflavored as a witch but I have yet to find a homebrew that is relatively balanced or interesting.

 

[Weiley31]

Does a gazebo attack as a house?

I greatly enjoy the idea that a Warlock/ Witch views Gazebos and what not as a bizarre aberration

 

[Garthanos]

@Whizbang Dustyboots Not 5e, but I'm doing some work on another campaign/game. What's your opinion of the PF 1e Witch (in terms of fluff and basic powers ideas, even if you don't know the 3.5/PF system).

Witch – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

hmmm child scent...

I might change that ... to "Find the Lost" for several reasons.

 

[Yora]

I think witches should just be warlocks.

I think most kinds of spellcasters should just be warlocks, but it fits witches in particular.

 

[d24454_modern]

I use "witch" as a gender-neutral term.

In my ears, a male witch sounds normal. Often there is a family or a community of witches, and they are males and females.

That's because witch is a gender-neutral term. It's just that most people think of them as female like we do with nurses.