Benjamin Olson
Hero
Fair point. I always gloss over the "can cast once a day using a spell slot" invocations as garbage.I mostly agree with this. Just a reminder that a Warlock does have access to Polymorph as a Invocation: Sculptor of Flesh.
Fair point. I always gloss over the "can cast once a day using a spell slot" invocations as garbage.I mostly agree with this. Just a reminder that a Warlock does have access to Polymorph as a Invocation: Sculptor of Flesh.
It is quite easily possible to make a warlock that doesn't use Elrdritch Blast - making use of cantrips like Toll the Dead or Infestation for example. Or making melee attacks with a pact weapon (possibly in the form of talons). They will inflict less damage than other casters, sure, but that's appropriate for a character that focuses on debuffs, mind-control, and misdirection rather than direct attacks. No patron locks you into using specific spells; and the fiend patron has some pretty decent "witchy" spells as well - Command, Blindness/Deafness, Stinking Cloud. Save-based debuffs do kinda suck for a PC warlock-witch, though, particularly if you're going to forgo Eldritch Blast; the warlock has so few spell slots that it's seriously painful when an enemy makes its save.Warlock has all the thematic trappings, but its reliance on pact magic and eldritch blast doesn't invoke the feel for me. A witch doesn't feel like it should be spamming EB with occasional uses of invocations or pact spells, they feel like they should be a regular spellcaster mechanics with proper spell and ability support. Fiend patron is all about the burning, and hexblade is focused on making melee warlocks viable, neither feels like the archetypal witch with curses and spells.
Nearly every single wizard subclass fits the witch fantasy archetype VERY well. Pointing out dire omens (diviner) is very much a classic witch thing (c.f. Macbeth). Charm is one of THE most archetypical witch powers. ("Burn the Witch! She MADE my husband commit adultery"). Illusion works great, necromancy works great, conjuration is suitable for a "consorts with dark powers" type as well as "appears in unexpected places", transmutation fits brewing / supernatural personal abilities / changing people into newts. Wizard subclasses don't lock the caster into doing anything; they augment existing spelltypes or abilities.Wizards kinda fit the trope, but the current subclasses feel like they lock you into one aspect of the witch rather than general witchery. Diviners focus too much on the divination, enchanters too much on the charms, etc. Further, it ignores areas that could be bolstered by ideas like improved familiars or curses (both areas they could borrow from warlocks).
I've yet to read TCoE...but I have to agree that there probably is room for some darker-themed druid spells or abilities; and/or a more unseelie-inspired subclass. Circle of the Land - Swamp or Underdark work decently well for witches. As can Shepherd with insects/wolves/spiders and the like and maybe a reskinned or improvised totem type.Druids grab the nature-mage aspect, but again unless you want to focus on spores or wild-shape, the subs don't feel sufficiently "spooky". There was a druid subclass a while back (twilight) that sorta aimed for that, but I think there is definitely design space here for "nature witch" with mechanical support. Druids need a spooky sub!
It may surprise you to learn then that the vast majority of sorcerer spells are NOT evocations. Shadow Sorcerer is almost tailor-made for witch archetypes. And both Twin Spell and Heighten spell are incredibly useful for save-based debuffs.Sorcerer? Spell list support is awful for witchery (almost all evocation and flashy magic, very little support spells). Bardic magic is closer but again, bard mechanics emphasize performance and don't quite grab the feel of witchcraft. Clerics feels almost the opposite of what I would want, with magic being very angelic/radiant.
Sounds more to me like you don't want a class that represents the witch archetype; you want one that locks or enourages you into fitting the archetype. I respectfully think that it's better to have broad and inclusive classes. Even subclasses, which very frequently carry some degree of pre-flavored fluff, should be broad enough to encompass multiple archetypes. They should be scaffolds on which the -character- builds their own particular flavor. Not molds for a single idea.The issue though is that right now, no single class/subclass mix really represents the concept well.
Spell Slot | Potion Created |
---|---|
1st | Climbing, growth, or healing |
2nd | Mind reading or greater healing |
3rd | Invisibility, superior healing, or water breathing |
4th | Resistance |
That supplement had a great influence on my early campaign.Another witch "class" was the from the Glantri gazetteer. One of the secret crafts that could be added to a magic-user, it let them charm, create a potions, create a doll curse, disguise her appearance, summon imps and other familiars, perform a multi-target curse, change her shape (including into several similar creatures at once), and finally gain a magic jar type ability. It was similar to the 2e kit, though with a greater amount of powers as you gained greater mastery of the craft.
Call a class like that a Witch and the neo-Pagans will jump all over you, and in this case I think they'd have a point.I would love a spellcaster class built all around curses. Ideally these curses would work in tandem with things that other classes can do. For example, a curse that causes an enemy to deal damage to adjacent other enemies whenever it attacks. Or a curse that allows attacks from your allies to steal health from the cursed creature if they hit.
My issue is that warlocks have too few spell slots (due to how they structured Pact Magic) and they end up relying on cantrips and invocations, and that creates the illusion of doing 1-2 things constantly and a few "whammo" effects ever-so-often. I think the class is fun for certain playstyles, but I think warlocks are really geared toward an "attacker-with-tricks" playstyle moreso than a dedicated spellcaster (so much so, I tend to thing of them more like the magic-equivalent to rogues than akin to wizards or sorcerers).It is quite easily possible to make a warlock that doesn't use Elrdritch Blast - making use of cantrips like Toll the Dead or Infestation for example. Or making melee attacks with a pact weapon (possibly in the form of talons). They will inflict less damage than other casters, sure, but that's appropriate for a character that focuses on debuffs, mind-control, and misdirection rather than direct attacks. No patron locks you into using specific spells; and the fiend patron has some pretty decent "witchy" spells as well - Command, Blindness/Deafness, Stinking Cloud. Save-based debuffs do kinda suck for a PC warlock-witch, though, particularly if you're going to forgo Eldritch Blast; the warlock has so few spell slots that it's seriously painful when an enemy makes its save.
For me, a witch dabbles a little in all those things, but doesn't specialize in any of them per se. A witch does read omens, but they also lay hexs, cast charms, brew potions, summon monsters, and turn people into toads. The schools of magic kinda assume you're going to focus on one of those aspects, rather than touch on several.Nearly every single wizard subclass fits the witch fantasy archetype VERY well. Pointing out dire omens (diviner) is very much a classic witch thing (c.f. Macbeth). Charm is one of THE most archetypical witch powers. ("Burn the Witch! She MADE my husband commit adultery"). Illusion works great, necromancy works great, conjuration is suitable for a "consorts with dark powers" type as well as "appears in unexpected places", transmutation fits brewing / supernatural personal abilities / changing people into newts. Wizard subclasses don't lock the caster into doing anything; they augment existing spelltypes or abilities.
It may surprise you to learn then that the vast majority of sorcerer spells are NOT evocations. Shadow Sorcerer is almost tailor-made for witch archetypes. And both Twin Spell and Heighten spell are incredibly useful for save-based debuffs.
It probably wouldn't be too hard to create a Pact Boon that replicates a cauldron, poppet, or other "witchy" tool and get an even stronger feel as well.To me the 5e witch is found in the warlock class. Take the archfey, fiend, or celestial patron, and the tome or chain pact. You can get rituals like augury and beast bond; you can get a familiar; you can take thaumaturgy or druidcraft; you get hex and polymorph; you can heal. Basically you can cover all the witch archetypes with a warlock, and most importantly you retain the concept of making deals with supernatural powers, unlike a wizard witch, which while also a good fit, doesn’t quite achieve the full witch fantasy in my opinion.
I gotta agree with this. What a witch is isn't represented in any one class, but its strewn about through others. Its got some warlock thematics to it per the pacts, but also some drudi stuff, but also a bit of wizard stuff (Albeit probably less in how wizards handle it and more just old folklore and the like)For me, a witch dabbles a little in all those things, but doesn't specialize in any of them per se. A witch does read omens, but they also lay hexs, cast charms, brew potions, summon monsters, and turn people into toads. The schools of magic kinda assume you're going to focus on one of those aspects, rather than touch on several.
What makes a spellcaster "witchy" is their motivation, methodology, and personal style. Not their base skillset. What differentiates an hunter or soldier from a villain in a slasher movie is their choice of prey...plus maybe some scarring, deformity, and history of inbreeding. You have all sorts of creative control of your character even as a player. For example:For me, a witch dabbles a little in all those things, but doesn't specialize in any of them per se. A witch does read omens, but they also lay hexs, cast charms, brew potions, summon monsters, and turn people into toads. The schools of magic kinda assume you're going to focus on one of those aspects, rather than touch on several.
Furthermore, if a "witch" is just a wizard specializing in a normal school of magic, there is nothing "witchy" about their magic and you've gone to the Harry Potter school of "witch is the feminine of wizard" rather than make witch something unique.
Yes, warlocks rely frequently on invocations and cantrips when their spell slots run out. However, one might spend most of their time using Misty Visions to confuse and misdirect enemies, and/or the Frostbite spell to inhibit counterattacks; another might focus on adding debuffs to Eldritch Blast; a third might primarily be interested in raw damage (which doesn't seem very "witchy" to me personally).My issue is that warlocks have too few spell slots (due to how they structured Pact Magic) and they end up relying on cantrips and invocations, and that creates the illusion of doing 1-2 things constantly and a few "whammo" effects ever-so-often. I think the class is fun for certain playstyles, but I think warlocks are really geared toward an "attacker-with-tricks" playstyle moreso than a dedicated spellcaster (so much so, I tend to thing of them more like the magic-equivalent to rogues than akin to wizards or sorcerers).
Limited spell selection is a classic problem with or feature of the sorcerer class. Careful spell and metamagic choice is the answer to this; and frequently you'll have only ever have maybe one or two spells for an entire category of magic; which is a different mindset than many other casters. It's still quite easy to support a witch concept - I can provide an example if you're actually interested in one. It's true that that they can't do summoning - but that's not a critical part of the "witch" archetype IMO. They don't have some of the highest-end illusions like Programmed Image or Mirage Arcane, but they have plenty of low-level stuff that works just fine. Phantasmal Force is a very good candidate for twinning btw. They have enough debuffs to make the category functional. Keep in mind their limited spell selection has expanded power and utility due to metamagic. A low or mid-level debuff that inflicts disadvantage on the save via Heightened Spell is frequently more effective than a higher-level spell.I built a shadow sorcerer. My biggest problem is that anything I wanted to do with them, I tended to find there wasn't enough spells to support the concept. They are lousy necromancers, have no summonings, not a lot of illusions, and very few debuffs. Coupled with their low spell selection, I found that they ended up still heavy on blast magic with a few key utility spells scattered through. But that's a topic for another day.
The more I think above it this option, the more I like it. This is the most effective parsimonious solution for the issue, period.Yeah I agree, Tasha's did miss a trick.
I like the Bard as a witch. Just swap out the instrument for components, and you have a good illusion, de-buffing based class with access to hold person, polymorph and a lot of nature based spells. Magical secrets lets you cherry pick the more iconic spells not on their list. Sure Warlock and Wizard are more obvious but I would do a Bard or maybe a Druid. (especially now with their wild shape familiar).
What makes a spellcaster "witchy" is their motivation, methodology, and personal style. Not their base skillset. What differentiates an hunter or soldier from a villain in a slasher movie is their choice of prey...plus maybe some scarring, deformity, and history of inbreeding. You have all sorts of creative control of your character even as a player.
And this can be solved by giving sorcerers two archetype spells per level, like clerics, paladins, and warlocks.Limited spell selection is a classic problem with or feature of the sorcerer class.
THIS!I like the Bard option.
I'd love to see an Unearthed Arcana with witch-like subclasses for Druid, Warlock, Bard, and Wizard, each addressing another variant of the witch archetype.