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

[Cadence]

DnD 5e as a whole is absolutely awful at dealing with those concepts which are too much for a subclass, but redundant as a main class. Swordmage, witch, shaman, psion, and numerous others all fit into this weird place there if you the to make them a subclass it's an unsatisfying mess, while if you try to make them a full class they heavily overlap with something which is already there.

I think I'd love a 5e book that ignored the overlap issue. Think of the new classes like PF did for archetypes (substitute out as many or fewer powers as you want) or hybrid classes (combine two classes) and then do something new and present them as new classes (like PF did for hybrid). And if the problem is multi-classing, then just say they can't multiclass with the classes they're too close to.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

And if the problem is multi-classing, then just say they can't multiclass with the classes they're too close to.

I have done something like that before where two divine classes or two arcane classes cannot be multiclassed together. And since so many classes in 5E can end up with magic, that cuts down on overlap and cheese.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I just wish D&D had started with a "theory of magic" and then filled in with appropriate classes, instead of just throwing into the pot anything that sounds cool and then trying to rationalize it.

 

[Cadence]

I just wish D&D had started with a "theory of magic" and then filled in with appropriate classes, instead of just throwing into the pot anything that sounds cool and then trying to rationalize it.

I was going to say I wish they had gone with "theories" so DMs could pick the one that fit best fit the campaign, along with the classes that came with it. But I'm pretty sure we'd get multi-class Witch-Conjurer-Gish-Thaumaturge optimizations or whatnot.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I just wish D&D had started with a "theory of magic" and then filled in with appropriate classes, instead of just throwing into the pot anything that sounds cool and then trying to rationalize it.

Blame it on the 70's. All they knew about magic back then was what the mushrooms told them.

 

[MGibster]

I just wish D&D had started with a "theory of magic" and then filled in with appropriate classes, instead of just throwing into the pot anything that sounds cool and then trying to rationalize it.

Oh, man. I think the rules back then were opaque enough as they were. Adding different theories of magic would have just made it all that much more difficult. Even today, I tend to think it's better to just accept D&D for what it is rather than attempt to fit every specific concept into its class system.

 

[Remathilis]

This is the fundamental problem that exists at the core of many of these discussions. D&D's core classes are a combination of really broad concepts and really narrow ones when ideally they would all be broad. Druid is really too specific a concept to apply to entire class IMO, and druids should have been carved out of a broader animist-theme class which would include other primal caster types like witches and shamans. WotC really should have put more effort into rethinking and re-concepting certain classes in 5e instead of just copy/pasting all of the legacy classes the way they did.

The same problem exists with several other classes, even including clerics, which push too hard into a "crusader" theme when they should be more generic to allow for a broader range of priestly/devoted concepts to fit inside it.

In honesty, their were only ever they broad concept classes: fighting-man and magic-user. Even the OD&D cleric was a fairly narrow archetype (Christian crusader and vampire hunter) and the Thief clearly so. Everything else (druid, paladin, ranger, bard, illusionist, assassin, barbarian, monk, cavalier, etc.) were just specialization of specialization.

Flash forward 50 years and the archetypes both don't have a lot of give to them and a lot of history, so I can't imagine them removing the druid and making it a section of a new animist class with again m shaman, witch and whatever.

I kinda wish they'd rip the band-aid off and just add some new classes and subclasses to the game that touch on requested archetypes like witch, psion or shaman. My general thought though is even with a disclaimer and playtest, they got too much negative feedback over the samurai and cavalier, so they have moved towards design that is more fantastical than archetypal. People are less likely to complain about a rune knight or scribe wizard than they are a samurai or witch.

 

[Cadence]

The set up: So, I'm working on a homebrew that may never get finished. But the power sources are:

1) Divine - Gods or whatnot from the outer or elemental planes (the characters are never visiting) - think Clerics

2) Spirit - Something in the neighboring spirit realm where the fae, hags, djinn, and demon-like creatures that might ever visit the prime material plane live - think 5e Warlocks, PF Shaman; PF Summoners, Sorcerous bloodlines would come through here

3) Attunement - Being really attuned with the actual world and things in it (not mediated by spirits or gods) - a version of druids and bards

4) Wizardry - Having the ability to learn and cast spells using the usual tropes - think Wizards, Alchemists, and Artificers

5) Rage/Panache/Grit/Qi - Being supernaturally able to draw upon oneself - think Barbarian, A5E Adept, PF Gunslinger, PF Swashbuckler


The questions:

If you had to pick where a witch comes from is it (2)?

If so, which feels most right:
(a) a pact like the 5e Warlock?
(b) a familiar from their that teaches the magic like the PF Witch
(c) an ability to call upon the spirit world to do "magic" without needing a familiar or patron (but might have one)

Or, do those seem off?

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

The thing is when you look back over the history of what has been considered a witch, whether 500 years ago or 2000 years ago or 50 years ago, you can make a Witch class using any of the first 4 points, especially when you get into Neo-Paganism. A Witch class could be the proto-class that all the other spellcasters evolved out of. And I still think that making a proper Witch class would require the elimination of the Warlock class, or making it a non-Good subclass of Witch. Going by just our modern view of what a Witch is, and going from a lot of the Pagan/Wiccan books I have read, the majority of those who call themselves witches, look at things a lot like the old Druids with Nature worship. And the second closest are those that think they inherited their "abilities" from their bloodline, which in game terms could tie into Aasimar and Tielfing backgrounds, which would add another option to your list.

 

[Cadence]

The thing is when you look back over the history of what has been considered a witch, whether 500 years ago or 2000 years ago or 50 years ago, you can make a Witch class using any of the first 4 points, especially when you get into Neo-Paganism. A Witch class could be the proto-class that all the other spellcasters evolved out of. And I still think that making a proper Witch class would require the elimination of the Warlock class, or making it a non-Good subclass of Witch. Going by just our modern view of what a Witch is, and going from a lot of the Pagan/Wiccan books I have read, the majority of those who call themselves witches, look at things a lot like the old Druids with Nature worship. And the second closest are those that think they inherited their "abilities" from their bloodline, which in game terms could tie into Aasimar and Tielfing backgrounds, which would add another option to your list.

I am not wedded to the idea of the 5e Warlock, and am just using it as a placeholder for something that gets its powers directly from a patron as described in 5e. It felt narrow for a Witch class.

In one of these threads on what folks wanted in a witch class, one of the big asks was that there actually be one that wasn't a sub-class. To do that it feels like I need to give it it's own niche. The alternate would be to make a witch sub-class for each of (1)-(4).

When I today, rolling nearest the top of my brain is a class whose unifying idea was a connection to the powers of the spirit world that didn't rely on spirits as mediators. It could then have a lot of sub-options (patron, bloodline, familiar, picked up wizardy spells a bit too, or something about a god; I imagine most of the classes would have sub-classes with a splash of flavor from the others to let folks narrow in on the concept they wanted).

Another thought is one that broke some/all of the boundaries of (1)-(4). That might make for a class that's a bit of an outcast from the more defined roles, and I can imagine it working for combining two things, say. But it feels like combining all 4 just ends up a mish-mash. If you had to rate (1) to (4), in terms of feeling right for a class, how would you rank them? I had vague thoughts of something that combined (2) and (3).