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

[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.