Break like the wind..or Which Witch?

[trancejeremy]

Personally, I like the Mongoose witch better, but the Green Ronin Witch isn't bad.

The Mongoose Witch is like a wizard, the Green Ronin is like a sorcerer. The Mongoose Witch is more a generic witch, combining both the Wicked Witches from the Wizard of Oz to the Wiccan sort of witches, while the Green Ronin is more like the latter, and is a bit too Druidish for me.

I've got reviews of both

http://www.geocities.com/nofrills_reviews/quintesswitch.htm


http://www.geocities.com/nofrills_reviews/d20greenwitch.htm

At the end of the second one (Green Ronins) I have tables comparing the two books and the two classes.

In any event, I think both are good, and worth buying if you want a witch class. Even if you use the witch from one book, the other has other usuable witchy stuff in it (make your player buy both books )

 

[Winterthorn]

I have the QW from Mongoose. It is a good resource. I am still tempted, if I have some extra $$, to pick up GR's book...

However, my interpretation of the Witch is based upon the DMG's suggestion... IMO the Witch, like the Cleric, should not borrow too heavily from RL history. I don't see the fantasy Witch as a practicioner of Paganism, just as the Cleric is not a practicioner of Christianity. YMMV of course I feel a more fanciful concept suits D&D better. D&D monsters are typically derived from mythology--often quite incredible--so why shouldn't classes, races and magic? It's fantasy after all!

So here are my assumptions for the D&D Witch:

1) Race: Always human (or half-breed human), and otherwise rare compared to other classes. Usually female too. (In balance, I consider Shamans typically male.) I would never prevent a player from playing a male Witch, or a female Shaman, but somehow these two classes "suggest" some gender specificity in my mind--so my NPCs will follow through on this. I'm not bothered by a few instances of roles divided along gender lines (as long as there are no strict barriers), nonetheless I consider all core classes free of any gender "leanings"...

2) Magic: They are arcane casters. They acquire spells and normally cast them like sorcerers do. They have their own spell list (I modified the suggested list from the DMG), and many of their spells are borrowed off of the divine casters' lists that other arcane casters cannot access. (That's very much for flavour--I lean toward nature, illusion, enchantment, summoning and necromantic spells.)

3) Alignment: never Lawful, usually Chaotic. Other than seaonal, lunar, and solar events, I see Witches as solitary, often adventuring when important/mysterious reasons arise...

4) Skill Points: 4 skill points per level--Witches can be an interesting source of knowledge on the frontier when sages are hard to find...

5) Familiars: Witches, being solitary in day-to-day life, would benefit greatly from extra allies and servants, so they can acquire more than one familiar with experience... (I still have to work out the details here too.) I imagine the 20th level Witch would have a whole menagerie of critters at her service.

6) Spellbooks: Unlike sorcerers, a Witch can sacrifice a spell slot for a day with a prepared spell from a spellbook--but this requires spellcraft checks (just as a Wizard would need with a borrowed book) and she must be literate. By default, Witches are considered illerate like Barbarians and Shamans, so skill points must be invested to enjoy this privilege. Unlike Wizards, Witches do not start with spellbooks; they must procure them in game somehow... (I have some mechanical details to work on here for game balance!)

7) Once a Witch, always a Witch: Witches cannot multiclass. (Too do so would break the flavour and power of this class IMO.)

Okay, that's what I'm working with. Because this class is very much a flavour variant, I took liberties with restrictions otherwise not appropriate with core classes. Of course more polish is required

I've used elements and ideas from the QW to help me out...

-W.

PS: thank you, trancejeremy, for the comparisons!

 

[Enceladus]

I don't have either books my players does. Before I make a recommendation I need to know does the witch carry a spellbook or does he get his spells like a sorcerer or druid/cleric?

Thanks!

 

[jester47]

Isn't a witch just a female wizard?

Aaron.

 

[Ed Cha]

There were plenty of men accused of witchcraft during the Middle Ages in Europe.

http://witches.monstrous.com/witch_craze.htm

Also, most shamans in Asia are/were women.

http://www.korea.net/koreanculture/artguide/shamanism.html

http://www.hranajanto.com/goddessgallery/uzume.html

Most people conceive witches as more like sorcerors than wizards (because their abilities are usually innate rather than learned), but really they have magical powers similar to druids and even clerics, too. Many are very in tune with nature and mysticism relating to the moon.

 

[trancejeremy]

Isn't a witch just a female wizard?

Aaron.

No, a female wizard is a wizardess, or sometimes a wizardette.

Really, the focus on the sort of magic was different. Wizards were like the Magi, fairly scholarly. Witches were more practical and earthier.

Anyway, it's tricky trying to put real world magic terms into D&D. Especially witch, since witch has so many meanings, many of which are fairly recent.

And some historical 'wizards' are more like other D&D classes. Simon Magus would be a Cleric. Merlin would be a Druid. John Dee doesn't really fit an existing spell casting classes, but you could make a pretty good case he was a Cleric, as he claimed he got most of his info from Angels.

Before I make a recommendation I need to know does the witch carry a spellbook or does he get his spells like a sorcerer or druid/cleric?

The Mongoose Witch does (called a "Book of Shadows", after Wiccans), while the Green Ronin Witch doesn't.

 

[Enceladus]

The Mongoose Witch does (called a "Book of Shadows", after Wiccans), while the Green Ronin Witch doesn't.

Thank you!

Mongoose it is. I like the idea of a witch carrying his knowledge and spells around with him. More options that way too.

 

[jester47]

No, a female wizard is a wizardess, or sometimes a wizardette.

Really, the focus on the sort of magic was different. Wizards were like the Magi, fairly scholarly. Witches were more practical and earthier.

Anyway, it's tricky trying to put real world magic terms into D&D. Especially witch, since witch has so many meanings, many of which are fairly recent.

And some historical 'wizards' are more like other D&D classes. Simon Magus would be a Cleric. Merlin would be a Druid. John Dee doesn't really fit an existing spell casting classes, but you could make a pretty good case he was a Cleric, as he claimed he got most of his info from Angels.




The Mongoose Witch does (called a "Book of Shadows", after Wiccans), while the Green Ronin Witch doesn't.

I guess you can say that. Especually considering Witch-doctor = Shaman for the most part.

Considering that I use adepts for shamans, and if I want an earth witch I will use a pclass or a combination of wizard or sorcerer and druid, I really see no reason for a witch class. Most of the time I would just use the mechanics of a Sorc, Druid, or Wiz and dress it up the way I want. I really cant see any reason for a new spellcasting class beyond Wiz, Dru, Sor, and Adp. Those four can pretty much work to cover everythying. Especially with the wizard specs, and the energy substitution feat for those pyro, hydro, aero, and choma-mancers. That would be awesome if 3.5 had actual specialisations for elemental wizards. Anyways, I guess I am not helping, But anyways thats how I see it. IMGs I think I will keep the Witch = female wizard out of convenience.

Aaron.

 

[jester47]

stupid double post...

 

[Enceladus]

Deja VU?

Uh oh. An "agent" is coming!!