Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e witches, your preferred implementation?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marandahir" data-source="post: 8299846" data-attributes="member: 6803643"><p>Sounds to me like your asking for a general caster class called Witch that includes Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Bard, and maybe even Druid as subclasses. I don't think that's necessarily a fruitless effort - it's something D&D pursued in 2e, 3e, and 4e with various class groupings. </p><p></p><p>But I do think that the easiest way to work with 5e would be to do something like what TCoE did for the Battle Master maneuvers: show archetypal characters that can be built with various packages of ability choices so people can understand how things work together. I feel like everything you need to make the Witch you want is already there in 5e, but we need a better way to helping entry-level players find their Witch. </p><p></p><p>I also think there's many other archetypal concepts that could work this way. The "4e Warlord" was the big one and that's why it's like that above. But I imagine that some of the people calling for "Shamans" on this board would agree that while the game CAN model what they want pretty well, it's not intuitive because it doesn't use the terms they like or are familiar with. And I imagine that the same guidance would be useful for making Jedi, or Magic Knights, or Psions, or Spirit Mediums or Ninja, etc. Concepts that have been in D&D before, or are popular in the modern pop culture of fantasy, but aren't their own class in D&D and may have multiple avenues for creating them. I think that's a robust part of the system, but it needs to be highlighted. </p><p></p><p>Even subclasses that don't have a central character archetype but share a theme could be highlighted in groups together. Jeremy Crawford has said that it was very much a design intention that the Horizon Walker Ranger and the Way of the Astral Self Monk share flavour, and he's said the same about the the Fey Wanderer Ranger and the Oath of the Ancients Paladin. There are various ways to group subclasses into genres, and I feel that witch is far more of a genre than a class in and of itself, even though it being a monosyllabic single noun word, Witch lends itself to good class name design (as opposed to nounverbers like Blood Hunter).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed. Past editions would role out classes a dime a dozen and the classes would rarely be filled out or given splatbook options once they were out the door if the options weren't in the same book or the class wasn't in the PHB.</p><p></p><p>Modern 5e class design is very big tent to have a lot of different ways of expressing the classes' big idea. But some big ideas are better suited to being the venn diagram between classes rather than being a class in and of themselves. The problem is drawing attention to the venn diagram so that new players can navigate the jargon of the game. </p><p></p><p>I mean, Kate Welch quit over the jargon and access issues in D&D. The game is not friendly enough to new players without an "older cousin" to teach them the legacy elements and help them find the character they want to build and understand that Spell level ≠ Class level, what spells or maneuvers make sense for their character, etc. They need to do a lot more work on this.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marandahir, post: 8299846, member: 6803643"] Sounds to me like your asking for a general caster class called Witch that includes Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Bard, and maybe even Druid as subclasses. I don't think that's necessarily a fruitless effort - it's something D&D pursued in 2e, 3e, and 4e with various class groupings. But I do think that the easiest way to work with 5e would be to do something like what TCoE did for the Battle Master maneuvers: show archetypal characters that can be built with various packages of ability choices so people can understand how things work together. I feel like everything you need to make the Witch you want is already there in 5e, but we need a better way to helping entry-level players find their Witch. I also think there's many other archetypal concepts that could work this way. The "4e Warlord" was the big one and that's why it's like that above. But I imagine that some of the people calling for "Shamans" on this board would agree that while the game CAN model what they want pretty well, it's not intuitive because it doesn't use the terms they like or are familiar with. And I imagine that the same guidance would be useful for making Jedi, or Magic Knights, or Psions, or Spirit Mediums or Ninja, etc. Concepts that have been in D&D before, or are popular in the modern pop culture of fantasy, but aren't their own class in D&D and may have multiple avenues for creating them. I think that's a robust part of the system, but it needs to be highlighted. Even subclasses that don't have a central character archetype but share a theme could be highlighted in groups together. Jeremy Crawford has said that it was very much a design intention that the Horizon Walker Ranger and the Way of the Astral Self Monk share flavour, and he's said the same about the the Fey Wanderer Ranger and the Oath of the Ancients Paladin. There are various ways to group subclasses into genres, and I feel that witch is far more of a genre than a class in and of itself, even though it being a monosyllabic single noun word, Witch lends itself to good class name design (as opposed to nounverbers like Blood Hunter). Agreed. Past editions would role out classes a dime a dozen and the classes would rarely be filled out or given splatbook options once they were out the door if the options weren't in the same book or the class wasn't in the PHB. Modern 5e class design is very big tent to have a lot of different ways of expressing the classes' big idea. But some big ideas are better suited to being the venn diagram between classes rather than being a class in and of themselves. The problem is drawing attention to the venn diagram so that new players can navigate the jargon of the game. I mean, Kate Welch quit over the jargon and access issues in D&D. The game is not friendly enough to new players without an "older cousin" to teach them the legacy elements and help them find the character they want to build and understand that Spell level ≠ Class level, what spells or maneuvers make sense for their character, etc. They need to do a lot more work on this. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e witches, your preferred implementation?
Top