D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[Zardnaar]

No. The warlock is a different concept drawing from a different part of fantasy.

There's a lot you can do with the warlock chasis though. Candle caster for example or a hex based subclass that's not a gish sure why not.

Witch is just a label,existing mechanics can cover it.

I think the Psion is a good example where you need a new class.

 

[Salthorae]

The warlock is a different concept

The dictionary disagrees:

war·lock
/ˈwôrˌläk/
noun

1. a man who practices witchcraft; a sorcerer.

 

[CleverNickName]

If it's a psionic class you want, there was one in an earlier UA article, back in 2016. They presented a Mystic class and then refined it a few months later. Maybe this would be a good place to start building one?

 

[Einlanzer0]

The dictionary disagrees:

war·lock
/ˈwôrˌläk/
noun

1. a man who practices witchcraft; a sorcerer.

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.

 

[Zardnaar]

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?

 

[Salthorae]

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]

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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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

It’s been around since at least the early 80’s. Both in dragon magazine options, and pop culture media. Way earlier if you count Howard’s Conan stories

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.)

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

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.