log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Really concerned about class design


log in or register to remove this ad




Zardnaar

Legend
The dictionary is not using fantasy archetypes as a basis for its definition, and D&D isn't using the dictionary as its basis for developing a class.
What hypothetical witch design couldn't be done using the warlock?

Beyond casts spells and maybe white and black magic there is no iconic witch concept that couldn't be done with the warlock or maybe another spellcasting class?
 
Last edited:

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
The dictionary is not using fantasy archetypes as a basis for its definition, and D&D isn't using the dictionary as its basis for developing a class.
I've never even heard about the Warlock as a "fantasy archetype" outside of the D&D class form 3.x - 5e

I can easily model a "Witch" as a Fiend Patron Tome Pact Warlock with the Hermit background (Medicine, Religion & Herbalism kit) and then have 2 friends to form a coven who all wear shawls. Those are your black magic Witches. White magic witches would then be the Celestial Patron Tome Lock.

I don't know why that is so hard for you to see. There isn't a NEED for a new class for that archetype.

Beyond casts spelks and maybe white and black magic there is no iconic witch concept
Even white/black magic is modeled. Celestial Patron vs. Fiend Patron.
 

Einlanzer0

Explorer
I've never even heard about the Warlock as a "fantasy archetype" outside of the D&D class form 3.x - 5e

I can easily model a "Witch" as a Fiend Patron Tome Pact Warlock with the Hermit background (Medicine, Religion & Herbalism kit) and then have 2 friends to form a coven who all wear shawls. Those are your black magic Witches. White magic witches would then be the Celestial Patron Tome Lock.

I don't know why that is so hard for you to see. There isn't a NEED for a new class for that archetype.



Even white/black magic is modeled. Celestial Patron vs. Fiend Patron.
I don't understand how it's so hard for you (and some others) to correctly understand the point I'm making.

I'm not sure why you still seem to think my argument is "a witch class is needed". That would be quite a silly argument. Did we need psionics, even as a subclass? Isn't that adequately approximated by illusion and enchantment? If not, can't it be homebrewed?

Since nothing like this is needed, maybe they should just stop all development on 5e?

Now maybe we can both set hyperbole aside. My point is simply that some concepts, if they're going to be developed, really make a lot more sense as full class options instead of subclasses tucked under an existing class they don't even thematically mesh well with.
 
Last edited:


jmartkdr2

Adventurer
I don't under


I don't understand how it's so hard for you (and some others) to correctly understand the point I'm making.

I'm not sure why you still seem to think my argument is "a witch class is needed". That would be quite a silly argument. Did we need psionics, even as a subclass? Isn't that adequately approximated by illusion and enchantment?

Since nothing like this is needed, maybe they should just stop all development on 5e?

Now maybe we can both set hyperbole aside. My point is simply that some concepts, if they're going to be developed, really make a lot more sense as full class options instead of subclasses tucked under an existing class they don't even thematically mesh well with.
I think what people are trying to say is: each new class that we add needs to be justified on its own. You really can't argue "there should be more classes" or "there should be fewer classes" without arguing for specific classes to add/remove. Starting with a number is just an butt-pull. (If you're gonna do that, I suggest 8.)

Now, I can and have made the argument that Eldritch Knight should be its own class (with arcane archer, hexblade, and rune knight as core subclasses) because the existing classes don't have the structure to make that particular fantasy or playstyle work. That's a class we should add (but that's a retcon, which WotC won't do.)

But that's the only way to make the argument: note which class is missing. (And witch is a poor example class because no one agrees on what a witch is.)
 

vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
Just to make something clear:
Psion is not going to be a ''wizard subclass''.
When you listen what the designers said in the last 2 years, there will be a class named Psion, with telepath, kineticist and telekinetist as archetypes.

All other class are going to gain a ''psionic-lite'' archetype, like most class have a spellcasting-lite subclass, and other caster class have a figthing-ish subclass.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I don't under


I don't understand how it's so hard for you (and some others) to correctly understand the point I'm making.

I'm not sure why you still seem to think my argument is "a witch class is needed". That would be quite a silly argument. Did we need psionics, even as a subclass? Isn't that adequately approximated by illusion and enchantment?

Since nothing like this is needed, maybe they should just stop all development on 5e?

Now maybe we can both set hyperbole aside. My point is simply that some concepts, if they're going to be developed, really make a lot more sense as full class options instead of subclasses tucked under an existing class they don't even thematically mesh well with.
I think thematically and mechanically the warlock covers the witch class. A few corner cases can be covered by new invocations and archetypes.

A dedicated shapedshifter class for example can't be covered although we have the moon druid.

That requires a new class. Psion needs a new class. A few others are in a similar boat.
 

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
Both in dragon magazine options, and pop culture media. Way earlier if you count Howard’s Conan stories
Ok. I'll give you Conan for sure, but nothing those guys do can't also be modeled by the Warlock class as is. already.

My point is simply that some concepts, if they're going to be developed, really make a lot more sense as full class options
No, I get your point.

And my reply to that has already been that they're not going to do a separate class for something a niche as a "witch". Even Crawford, in the Youtube video posted today for the UA Psionicist Wizard, straight up said, "we're not going to do a full Psion class because no one plays them, as neat as they are."

With their slow/limited release schedule in 5e, they're designing for the masses, not the niche. Witch is just a niche spellcaster for whom most of the checkboxes are ticked by the existing Warlock class and some flavor.

I keep using witch because it is the only one that you have specifically mentioned as something that needs that full Class space as a design concept. If you bring up others, I'll talk about how to do them with existing things. shrug

Psion is not going to be a ''wizard subclass''.
That's not what I got from Crawford's statement's today in his video on the UA Wizard.
 

Saelorn

Hero
Now maybe we can both set hyperbole aside. My point is simply that some concepts, if they're going to be developed, really make a lot more sense as full class options instead of subclasses tucked under an existing class they don't even thematically mesh well with.
If that's your point, then I can agree. The obvious follow up is, should those classes exist within the default D&D setting, or are they better left as an exercise for the DM?

Remember, the rules of the game describe only the tiniest fraction of possible fantasy settings. Most fantasy worlds have nothing that works even remotely like a D&D wizard. You can't use the wizard class to describe Gandalf, or Dumbledore, or Harry Dresden. The rules simply don't fit the desired narrative. And there's no reason you couldn't add in a new type of magic user, which would allow for new character archetypes to be expressed, but... I mean, the setting is already kind of full, as it is. Adding another spellcaster wouldn't really help the lore of the world at all. If anything, there's already too much going on.

So if you want to add some new classes for your own world, then that makes perfect sense. It just doesn't follow at all that WotC would publish more classes on their own, since they already have enough for their official settings.
 

vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
That's not what I got from Crawford's statement's today in his video on the UA Wizard.
I've not listened to it yet. I still believe the ''two pronged approach'' that Mearl intented in his previous Happy fun hours still hold. Time will tell.

To be honest, I dont really care if we skip the psion-as-class in favor of psi-fueled subclass. I dont really think we need another full caster just for the sake of having a new (not)spells list.

Psychic warrior
Soulknife
Aberrant Mind and Chaos sorcerer
Astral self monk
Wildsoul barb
etc

all of this would be enough psionics for me personally .
 

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
Time will tell.
Indeed it will! :)

I wouldn't be upset if we did see both a full Psion and these Psionic subclasses around at the same time. I just don't think it'll happen.

Astral self monk
This was my least favorite of the newly release UA's. I'd honestly hate to see that as the "psionic monk" that someday makes print.

There is a ton of thematic overlap between Monk and Psion. I loved the old 3.5 PrC Psionic Fist, and I think any of the existing Monk abilities/subclasses can easily re-flavor "ki points" to "PSP" (or whatever) and boom you've got Psionic Monks. I really didn't care for the Astral Self Monk and its implementation.
 

tglassy

Adventurer
I posted this elsewhere, but you know, I really just want them to make a Space Ranger class. I mean, how long do I have to wait for that? And I don't mean fluffing an existing class to mimic what my ideal of a Space Ranger would be. Oh no. I want full on new mechanics. I want WOTC to take their time, spend their money and develop ME a freaking class that I would love to play, based on my own perception of what that class should be. I want a button on the back of my character's pack that lets him do karate chop action. I want a laser beam coming out of his hand, and I want a bonus action retractible face mask that gives him the ability to breath in space, and I want that to be a class mechanic, not just some "suit" that he can buy. And the mechanics better be very, very different from what's already out there, because I envision a Space Ranger being very, very different from everything that's already been done. And don't give me this "Use a Home-brew" bull. It has to be official or WOTC has failed me, personally. You might say that all of what a Space Ranger is could be accomplished by providing a space suit for a specific amount of gold and picking any class to go with it, but that just won't fit my vision of this game.
 

See, to me it feels like a streamlined and elegant way to develop the system without cluttering up the number of classes themselves, which was a huge issue for me in 3.5
To me it really doesn't, because if it were that there wouldn't be half as many classes in the PH. Warlocks, Bards, & Sorcerers would be traditions. Druids would be Nature Clerics. Paladins & Ranger would be archetypes that tap divine spells like the EK does arcane - Berserker (Barbarian would just be a more evocative name for the Outlander background), likewise, would be a fighter archetype.

And, even if 5e were being designed in an elegant, streamlined way to maximize coverage without a lot of superfluous classes, it'd still need a full-class psionic of some sort.
 


What hypothetical which design couldn't be done using the warlock?
Beyond casts spelks and maybe white and black magic there is no iconic witch concept that couldn't be done with the warlock or maybe another spellcasting class?
It depends on which witch you're talking about. A proper neo-pagan witch is essentially a priestess, more like a D&D Druid than a D&D warlock. The burning-times Christian stereotype of the witch, a perverse soul-peddling Satanist, would be closer to the Warlock.
The D&D witch, OTOH, isn't quite either. The old-school witch was a Major Villain NPC, with over-the-top spell powers - in 5e, that'd be a Legendary monster stat block. Later versions shaded into a sort of arcane priestess, who used wizard-like powers but in a cultural role closer to a priest or shaman - in 5e, that could be a wizard with an appropriate background, acolyte, or something customized for the culture in question.
 
Last edited:

Zardnaar

Legend
It depends on which witch you're talking about. A proper neo-pagan witch is essentially a priestess, more like a D&D Druid than a D&D warlock. The burning-times Christian stereotype of the witch, a perverse soul-peddling Satanist, would be closer to the Warlock.
The D&D witch, OTOH, isn't quite either. The old-school witch was a Major Villain NPC, with over-the-top spell powers - in 5e, that'd be a Legendary monster stat block. Later versions shaded into a sort of arcane priestess, who used wizard-like powers but in a cultural closer to a priest or shaman - in 5e, that could be a wizard with an appropriate background, acolyte, or something customized for the culture in question.
Witch was a kit in 2E. Warlock and wizard would be the best bet.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top