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).