Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Einlanzer0" data-source="post: 7864744" data-attributes="member: 6788934">I mean, literally all anyone who is curious has to do is google &quot;witch 5e&quot; and see there about a dozen different options showing how much you could potentially do.To your point - it definitely could be. It could also be a wizard subclass. But neither of those options take the concept far enough for me, personally. There are a few reasons for this. Mostly - the warlock is very DPR-focused while the wizard is a bit more utility focused. I see the witch as more utility focused, making it incongruent with the warlock, but at the same time the flavor and specific features are very different from a wizard's. In some ways it's almost like the flavor of the warlock mixed with the crunch of the wizard. Is that, alone, enough to warrant WotC making it a full class? Probably not. But I also think it means it can't be represented well with a subclass for either wizard or warlock.Actually, I kind of look at a witch as the primal representative of arcane magic, analogous with a barbarian and a shaman. It might be best described as the Druid to the cleric's wizard. I like the idea of having a full primal suite of classes - barbarian is the lone representative of this in the core classes. This is part of why I like the idea of having both shamans and witches as options representing this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Einlanzer0, post: 7864744, member: 6788934"] I mean, literally all anyone who is curious has to do is google "witch 5e" and see there about a dozen different options showing how much you could potentially do. To your point - it definitely could be. It could also be a wizard subclass. But neither of those options take the concept far enough for me, personally. There are a few reasons for this. Mostly - the warlock is very DPR-focused while the wizard is a bit more utility focused. I see the witch as more utility focused, making it incongruent with the warlock, but at the same time the flavor and specific features are very different from a wizard's. In some ways it's almost like the flavor of the warlock mixed with the crunch of the wizard. Is that, alone, enough to warrant WotC making it a full class? Probably not. But I also think it means it can't be represented well with a subclass for either wizard or warlock. Actually, I kind of look at a witch as the primal representative of arcane magic, analogous with a barbarian and a shaman. It might be best described as the Druid to the cleric's wizard. I like the idea of having a full primal suite of classes - barbarian is the lone representative of this in the core classes. This is part of why I like the idea of having both shamans and witches as options representing this. [/QUOTE]

Verification