Where to put Odd Spell-Casters: Bard, Witch, etc?

[trancejeremy]

I have in mind enchantments, summoning and polymorph spells, which are all wizard's spells. But maybe that's just one type of witch... which other spells do you have in mind?

Just to but in, personally I've always seen the Witch as being somewhere between a Cleric and a Wizard, sharing some of the spells of both (AD&D actually does this by having the "Witch Doctor" for humanoid monsters), but also having some of their own.

But I think there are a lot of possibilities. It's a very evocative word - you can either stick an adjective in front of it, like say the Wicked Witch or Fire Witch or Moonlight Witch (to use examples from other media) or you can use it as an adjective - Witch Queen, Witch Blade, etc. It taps into the psyche in a way that more generic words don't.

 

[tuxgeo]

Honestly, I would like to see the Druid renamed Animist. Then, I would add both a Shaman and a Witch class. Shaman's deal with spirits.

No renaming! WotC is trying to be inclusive of older D&D traditions now; and the "Druid" class is a part of the older D&D traditions. "Animist" is not.

The witch would be a Wisdom based arcane caster whose magic focuses on charms, healing, protection, curses, illusions, transformation, and nature as presented in Green Ronin's Witch's Handbook. No flashy lightning bolts. No fireballs, and no monster summoning.

I think I'm nearly alone in admiring the 4E Warlock class on the basis of its feature of making Charisma-based powers available for some warlocks and making Constitution-based powers available for other warlocks; and some powers where the warlock has to choose which power source to use, and then cannot change it once chosen.

Couldn't the same be done with a new, arcane "Witch" class? You could have your lore-loving "weird-woman" with powers based on Intelligence; but you could also have your curse-throwing "hex-woman" with powers based on Charisma; and you could have your healing-and-herbalism "wise-woman" with powers based on Wisdom -- all in the same class.

With these three classes, the player can then base their Druid on whichever fits their concept or DM's campaign as Druid's have been presented in all three manners.

I think the Witch and the Shaman should be separate from the Druid. The 4E mechanics of the Shaman are quite different from the various 4E mechanics of the Druid.

The bard is a more interesting case. Is it a pure caster that does not fight well? A rogue or jack of all trades? a warrior (e.g., skald)? What power source? Arcane ? Divine ? Primal? Again, so many different sources to draw from. Personally, I don't like the rogue being default. I think there needs to be a way to handle all of these without multiclassing and hoop jumping so people can do their interpretation whether basing it upon the Celtic origin (the initial training for Ovate/Olahm and Druids as well as its own path for those not pursuing the path of Ovate/Olahm), the roguish minstrel, the gallant, the bardic arcane sage, the skald, the divine cantor, the tribal lore keeper.

Lyrical bards and Polemic bards and Ballad bards and Instrumental bards and Dance bards (with hula, ballet, step, clog, circle, line, square, snake, ballroom, and other dance varieties). It's a confusing mess, alright!

(Rock bards! -- "between a rock and a bard place")

 

[SKyOdin]

I hate to open this bag of worms, but aren't Warlock and Witch synonymous almost all of the time? What would a Witch class add that the Warlock hasn't been doing for the last couple of editions?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I hate to open this bag of worms, but aren't Warlock and Witch synonymous almost all of the time? What would a Witch class add that the Warlock hasn't been doing for the last couple of editions?

Bubbling cauldrons.

 

[gyor]

Given Wotc's goal is bringing people back, no Bard in the phb isn't going to be an option, same with Paladin which is confirmed already.
When the bard wasn't in the 4e phb people flipped.

The phb will have Bards, Fighters, Rogues, Druids, Clerics, Monks, Wizards, Barbarians. This seems certain to me.

It will also likely have warlocks, sorceror, warlords, and maybe a psion. This is business and these classes are the ones that will have the biggest demand after the above classes.

See going in with a bare minium will create backlash, so if wotc wants to achieve its goals and lots of options are needed to do so, otherwise are chucks of the market will be lost.

 

[SlyDoubt]

I hate to open this bag of worms, but aren't Warlock and Witch synonymous almost all of the time? What would a Witch class add that the Warlock hasn't been doing for the last couple of editions?

The specific flavors of different games have taken them in different directions. Definitely though in 5E I imagine they would just unify those concepts and produce a very complete (thematically) warlock/witch class.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Honestly, I would like to see the Druid renamed Animist. Then, I would add both a Shaman and a Witch class. Shaman's deal with spirits.

I'm actually working on something like that, with Shamans being Charisma-based spontaneous Primal casters with less of a "wilderness" focus and more of a "harmony" focus and spiritual powers.

The bard is a more interesting case. Is it a pure caster that does not fight well? A rogue or jack of all trades? a warrior (e.g., skald)? What power source? Arcane ? Divine ? Primal?

I let Bards choose their power source at 1st level. Actually a big deal in my house rules, since characters can learn spells from other classes within their power source-- so an Arcane Bard, a Divine Bard, and a Primal Bard are really different characters. (And Bards can choose multiple power sources if they're willing to pay for it.)

 

[Sammael]

Neither Warlock nor Witch are ingrained enough in D&D to be made separate from the Mage class. Just go the Skills & Powers (Spells & Magic, more exactly) route, and create special Mage flavors for the two.

And I really do hope that power sources as a concept are wholly abandoned in 5e.

 

[grimslade]

The witch/warlock may not be a D&D staple but it is a fantasy staple that should be explored in a future option book or DDI. The concept of a pact based caster is good and should be explored more.
Power sources have been with us since Gygax and Arneson split clerics, fighting-men and magic-users. The problem is not with the concept but the execution. If each power source has an analogous power, there is no difference, it is just flavor text. Power sources should refine and define differences between the classes.
I think the oddball classes should be spun off into options. I love the bard in all its crazy incarnations but its difficulty in pinning down between editions means it needs more space than a basic rule book can give. The witch/warlock needs to be combined with more thematic elements than can be dealt with so to the option train it goes.
The druid is a class with a funky subsystem of its own: wildshape. Otherwise the druid operates like a normal divine caster. I think there is space to address wildshape in the basic rules. If the basic rules have polymorph and shapechange as spells, they can handle wildshape. I think druid can be in the basic rules, but would really shine in a wild or primal options book.

 

[Greg K]

I'm actually working on something like that, with Shamans being Charisma-based spontaneous Primal casters with less of a "wilderness" focus and more of a "harmony" focus and spiritual powers

3e? If so, have you seen Green Ronin's Shaman's Handbook by Steve Kenson. Awesome book and class.

I let Bards choose their power source at 1st level. Actually a big deal in my house rules, since characters can learn spells from other classes within their power source-- so an Arcane Bard, a Divine Bard, and a Primal Bard are really different characters. (And Bards can choose multiple power sources if they're willing to pay for it.)

In my 3e campaign, I use the UA variants with a few modifications.