D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[TwoSix]

I do understand, I promise! My job is scripting things and I have two years of a CS degree as well as a decade and a half of knowledge management and IT experience, which is basically what this is at the junction of. I am familiar with how their homebrew system, which involves light scripting, works, and confident they could likely expand it to classes. Question is if they have time to get to it before 6E, I suspect. Especially as near 6E we will likely see a flurry of experimental material from WotC.

Yep. I mean, it is some work from a coding and QC perspective, but its not really that bad. Certainly to build new classes that are primarily reorgs of existing PHB classes and features, which is what about 75% of homebrew classes are anyway.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

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?

Probably at least until they release a 5e Spelljammer, and almost certainly much longer. Given that they took this long to add one class it seems unlikely that they will get to Sci-Fi classes anytime soon.

But I feel the pain. When I saw the Horizon Walker Ranger I started wanting to make some sort of dimension hopping, cheesy sci-fi serial, defender of the multiverse, but the base Ranger features just aren't on theme.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

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.

Indeed, the real world association of witches as having derived their power through a pact with the devil is not really the fantasy trope, though it is part of the source for the Warlock class.

My guess is if we get a witch it will be either a type of druid or a hag themed warlock or sorcerer.

 

[Salthorae]

is not really the fantasy trope

What is the fantasy trope for a witch?

 

[Benjamin Olson]

What is the fantasy trope for a witch?

Comparable with real world, but generally less emphasis on the pact with the devil aspect that inspired warlocks. More emphasis on brewing cauldrons of whatever, living out in the woods, covens, casting evil eyes, and/or black(ish) magic. Your fantasy mileage may certainly vary.

Historical Western belief in witchcraft was most in vogue in the Early Modern era, which is when various witch-hunts mostly took place, and (give or take some Macbethish examples) tended to consistently be interested in burning people for consorting with the devil rather than particular stereotypes of what a witch looked like. Beliefs elsewhere may varied, but "witch" is the English word and examples from distant cultures may be more what English people centuries ago drew parallels with rather than directly related beliefs.

In any case, all I'm getting at is that the Warlock class is closely associated with a common real-world belief in a certain type of witch, but doesn't really encompass broader tropes of what a witch is and is incompatible with any conception of a witch that does not involve pacts. I don't particularly pine for a Witch class, I was just addressing a discussion of whether witches and warlocks should be the same thing in D&D.

 

[Salthorae]

Warlock class is closely associated with a common real-world belief in a certain type of witch, but doesn't really encompass broader tropes of what a witch is and is incompatible with any conception of a witch that does not involve pacts. I don't particularly pine for a Witch class, I was just addressing a discussion of whether witches and warlocks should be the same thing in D&D.

I've never argued that they have to be the same, though warlocks are strictly speaking literally male witches, but whatever. I've just been pointing out that you can model witchcraft through an existing class.

The great thing about trying to adapt things to the D&D rules, especially when we're not bound by a class called "X" is that we can get at it in different ways depending on what we want to emphasize about that adaptation (see all 1 billion* youtube videos entitled "Playing X Character in D&D" or something similar).

So someone who wants to play a "witch" but with less/no emphasis on the "pact with X supernal being" has other options. The first I'd look at would be Wizard, with a familiar, and the hermit background for that Herbalism Kit and potion brewing.

There is very little conceptually that I don't think can be done/built with 5e classes/subclasses to get at a concept or archetype I want. It just takes some imagination and willingness to not have to have every. single. checkbox. ticked. of a concept. Sure as they publish more subclasses it gets easier to model X concept, but that doesn't mean that 90-99% of what people want to play can't be done already.

Just like we had in the UA Class Features discussion on how Pact of the Chain falls short because people want to play Ash/Pikachu. I can very easily play Ash and Pikachu with the existing material. Other people want a Pokemon trainer mechanical pet class for D&D and can't see their way to playing that concept without it.

*that may or may not be hyperbole. I've never counted.

 

[bedir than]

As people are still going on about the witch, I see the desire for a level of complexity (there were about a dozen features listed) and an appeal for variety in subclasses available.

Hidden Oddities is the product you want.

 

[generic]

The Witch cannot be perfectly replicated through concept based play in other classes, which is fine, but, either WotC needs to release way, WAY more subclasses in an upcoming splatbook, or, they need to create new classes (such as the Artificer, how is it, by the way?) at a moderate pace.

I can only play concept-only Witches for so long before I long for complexity, but that may just be me.

 

[TwoSix]

As people are still going on about the witch, I see the desire for a level of complexity (there were about a dozen features listed) and an appeal for variety in subclasses available.

Hidden Oddities is the product you want.

Thanks! I've been using the Complete Witch from Mage Hand Press in my games, but this looks really interesting, especially with 100 new spells. I'll be picking this up.

 

[Oofta]

The Witch cannot be perfectly replicated through concept based play in other classes, which is fine, but, either WotC needs to release way, WAY more subclasses in an upcoming splatbook, or, they need to create new classes (such as the Artificer, how is it, by the way?) at a moderate pace.

I can only play concept-only Witches for so long before I long for complexity, but that may just be me.

So the DmsGuild doesn't buy anything? Because that seems to be the division. Most people seem to be okay with the release schedule and if you really need more variety its a few clicks away.