D&D 5E So Where my Witches at?

[Remathilis]

Tasha's Cauldron got me thinking, where (or what) is the Witch in D&D (5e)?

Tasha is stated to be a witch. Commonly, "witches" are represented by the warlock class. There are "witch" invocations (such as witch sight) that back up the theme, and their spells are witch-y with things like hex and witch bolt. However, Tasha comes off sounding much more like a traditional wizard from her commentary, speaking of spell research and wizard academies. Seems to me WotC missed an excellent opportunity to have a "witch" wizard subclass (with all the potion-brewing, hexing, and toad-making that comes with it) but then again, isn't that the warlock's domain? And that mostly just covers the classic Halloween witch, which is to say nothing about the more traditional "nature mage" that the Pathfinder witch and 4e Witch classes filled. Again, you might argue a fey warlock kindasorta fills that niche, but there is probably some design space here (especially as a subclass for druids or sorcerers) that could have been used.

I guess I kinda feel that if you are going to make a product that features an important D&D witch, you ought to, ya know, put some witch-stuff in the book?

 

[Lanefan]

Witch classes have been tried for ages - I remember one or two going by in early Dragon magazines - and have for whatever reason never caught on.

Further, using Witch as a class name risks offending parts of the sometimes-quick-to-take-offense neo-Pagan movement if there's anything the least bit negative about the class; and I very much suspect WotC are well aware of this.

 

[Retreater]

That, and all the hubbub about Harry Potter amongst some communities due to their use of "witch" to describe a female wizard. The term has a history that would alienate gamers in many walks of life, whether they feel this is anti-Christian, anti-Pagan, or something else.
I say, just leave it as a warlock and it works fine.

 

[Remathilis]

Witch classes have been tried for ages - I remember one or two going by in early Dragon magazines - and have for whatever reason never caught on.

Further, using Witch as a class name risks offending parts of the sometimes-quick-to-take-offense neo-Pagan movement if there's anything the least bit negative about the class; and I very much suspect WotC are well aware of this.

I'm not sure about the latter; neo-paganism hasn't bothered them enough to remove the Druid.

But yes, there hasn't been a true "witch" class that truly took off. There was an NPC class (1e), a wizard kit (2e), and a 4e wizard subclass, (I don't think there was ever a proper 3e witch, though PF made one) but I think its a strong enough archetype that it could at least warrant a subclass with the "samurai and knight" treatment.

 

[Faolyn]

Just consider witch to be a title, not a class.

 

[Remathilis]

Just consider witch to be a title, not a class.

You could make the same argument about paladin, ranger, or druid, not to mention necromancer, assassin, or cavalier.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not sure about the latter; neo-paganism hasn't bothered them enough to remove the Druid.

Only due to timing: Druid was in as a class before the neo-Pagan movement really got up any steam and thus had/has precedent on its side.

Were they to try and introduce 'Druid' as a new class today it'd get shot down for both this reason and that it's too tied to one specific culture and thus could be seen as non-inclusive.

But yes, there hasn't been a true "witch" class that truly took off. There was an NPC class (1e), a wizard kit (2e), and a 4e wizard subclass, (I don't think there was ever a proper 3e witch, though PF made one) but I think its a strong enough archetype that it could at least warrant a subclass with the "samurai and knight" treatment.

Pretty sure there was more than one proposed Witch class in Dragon during the 1980s. Maybe one was the NPC class and another was a trial balloon for a PC class?

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Witch classes have been tried for ages - I remember one or two going by in early Dragon magazines - and have for whatever reason never caught on.

Further, using Witch as a class name risks offending parts of the sometimes-quick-to-take-offense neo-Pagan movement if there's anything the least bit negative about the class; and I very much suspect WotC are well aware of this.

No, males in the real world who consider themselves witches are much more offended by being called a warlock, and it's negative meaning, whether the modern meaning was once historically not accurate. Don't ever label someone who takes this seriously as an oath breaker. As for Witch, you have to deal with the stereotype that only females can be witches, so in the early days of D&D, when the vast majority of players were male, of course a Witch class failed.

 

[Alzrius]

As others have noted, official D&D has always had a hard time getting a witch character role off the ground; it's not that there haven't been attempts (there've been many), it's just that none have really caught on. Conceptually, the niche remains unfulfilled, which is why the community keeps trying with everything ranging from new classes to warlock patrons to wizard traditions.

Please note my use of affiliate links in this post.

 

[Weiley31]

Witch as a class is more a Pathfinder type deal since its in it.(On the other side of the coin, the Pathfinder 2E Witch is more like the Warlock in the fact that both the Warlock/Witch has/deal with a Patron.)

Plus the Witch brings up the image of the Hag. Which is its own buckets of apples in DND.