I don't think there is one particular goddess for witches.
Presumably depending on the region they pray to Mystra because she is goddess of Magic, Sehanine Moonbow or Chauntea (worshipped in Rashemen where witches held enormous power).
I really think Witch should be a warlock subclass. I think it has the flavor and the theme to go with it. Warlock is also one of those classes where subclass matters a lot. I do agree the toolkit isn't really there for the complete witch feel but I think that would come in cursing class features and maybe some invocations.
DnD subclasses really don't do a good job of making a satisfying alternate to a class.
You can paint a bishop chess piece pink and change its name, but it's still a bishop, and will play the same as one.
5e subclasses are the same. You choose a class, and then pick glitter or varnish. Doesn't matter which you pick, it's still 80% the same class, and will play like that class with all its pros, cons, and mechanical and thematic baggage.
I know some people wont like my question on the Witch is...... Why not make it another 'subclass' of the Cleric?
Take a look at the Cleric spell list......it has a lot of 'Witchy' type spells on it. Also, the Witch could have other spells like Hex, etc. added to the Cleric list just like the other subclasses have added to theirs.
Because witches dont serve gods and none of the class features fit.
Umm... Hecate is literally considered Goddess of Witches. She is referenced as such by the witches in Macbeth, who clearly worship her.
but they definitely dont get their power from her.......at least I think. Also, my second point stands. Hecate is the goddess of MAGIC not witches. there is a difference
Witches use some other power than magic, then? And do wizards normally pray or invoke deities as part of casting their spells?
no.......but neither do witches lol. Clerics do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The whole flavor with Warlock is off though, because pact magic comes from the patron, and the witch wouldn't have such patron
What are you using for the basis for the Witch concept? Most people seem to be basing it off the Pathfinder Witch which has the patron as a core concept of the character.
The whole flavor with Warlock is off though, because pact magic comes from the patron, and the witch wouldn't have such patron
What are you using for the basis for the Witch concept? Most people seem to be basing it off the Pathfinder Witch which has the patron as a core concept of the character.
Also, wasn't warlock a traditional name for a male witch? :D
The whole flavor with Warlock is off though, because pact magic comes from the patron, and the witch wouldn't have such patron
What are you using for the basis for the Witch concept? Most people seem to be basing it off the Pathfinder Witch which has the patron as a core concept of the character.
Also, wasn't warlock a traditional name for a male witch? :D
Both Warlock and Wizard have been used as the male counterpart of Witch. Though depending on where you look, Warlock is actually a name used to insult male witches as warlock can sometimes mean oath-breaker, liar, or traitor.
Maybe we could just call them Occultists if the witch name is an issue? Since people may not know that witches can actually be male or female.
The whole flavor with Warlock is off though, because pact magic comes from the patron, and the witch wouldn't have such patron
What are you using for the basis for the Witch concept? Most people seem to be basing it off the Pathfinder Witch which has the patron as a core concept of the character.
Also, wasn't warlock a traditional name for a male witch? :D
Both Warlock and Wizard have been used as the male counterpart of Witch. Though depending on where you look, Warlock is actually a name used to insult male witches as warlock can sometimes mean oath-breaker, liar, or traitor.
Maybe we could just call them Occultists if the witch name is an issue?
I do like the sound of Occultist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Because Artificer Infusions don't make any sense whatsoever for a Witch.
Because Wild Shape makes only a small amount of sense for a specific type of Witch, and the spell list does not support the concept of a Witch.
Because Metamagic doesn't make sense for a Witch, and the spell list does not support the concept of a Witch.
Because Eldritch Invocations make sense only for a specific type of Witch, while Pact of the Chain makes sense only for a different specific type of Witch.
Because the Spellbook mechanic doesn't make any sense for a Witch, and the spell list does not support the concept of a Witch.
Are we seeing a pattern yet?
That your concept of a witch is excessively narrow? You have a specific idea of what a witch is, but folklore and literature does not -- witch doesn't have a consistent meaning beyond 'magical, probably female' (some of them aren't even spellcasters -- e.g. the witch in Hansel and Gretel never casts any spells).
I know some people wont like my question on the Witch is...... Why not make it another 'subclass' of the Cleric?
Take a look at the Cleric spell list......it has a lot of 'Witchy' type spells on it. Also, the Witch could have other spells like Hex, etc. added to the Cleric list just like the other subclasses have added to theirs.
Witches don't Channel Divinity or Turn Undead. Clerics can't curse, or use group magic, or brew potions. That's a lot of stuff to add in one subclass.
Last I checked bestow curse is on the Cleric spell list. Just about all the Cleric spells can be used as a witch spells and the others can be added as spells gained as it increases in levels....just like in every other Cleric subclass.
The problem is people have a very specific idea in mind when they want a new class and if it's not exactly what they are picturing..... NO! That wont work.
none of the base Cleric features would keep it from making a Witch subclass. Some witches produced undead so why would turn undead be wrong? And the channel divinity feature for a witch would be different from the other subclasses.......use the second chanel divinity feature to flavor it as a witch. Give them proficiency in an alchemist kit.....boom they have a cauldron to brew potions. Edit to add: A Hermit background will give proficiency with a herbalism kit.
I know some people wont like my question on the Witch is...... Why not make it another 'subclass' of the Cleric?
Take a look at the Cleric spell list......it has a lot of 'Witchy' type spells on it. Also, the Witch could have other spells like Hex, etc. added to the Cleric list just like the other subclasses have added to theirs.
Witches don't Channel Divinity or Turn Undead. Clerics can't curse, or use group magic, or brew potions. That's a lot of stuff to add in one subclass.
Last I checked bestow curse is on the Cleric spell list. Just about all the Cleric spells can be used as a witch spells and the others can be added as spells gained as it increases in levels....just like in every other Cleric subclass.
The problem is people have a very specific idea in mind when they want a new class and if it's not exactly what they are picturing..... NO! That wont work.
none of the base Cleric features would keep it from making a Witch subclass. Some witches produced undead so why would turn undead be wrong? And the channel divinity feature for a witch would be different from the other subclasses.......use the second chanel divinity feature to flavor it as a witch. Give them proficiency in an alchemist kit.....boom they have a cauldron to brew potions
turn undead? Channel DIVINITY? all the other spells like flame strike and holy word? one spell and some reflavouring is just......bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Here's a question for Kotath, BigLizard, Templar, et al.
What is a player supposed to do when their DM refuses to allow them to modify an existing class or subclass?
No homebrew, no reflavoring, no nada. That player is instructed to play what's in the book, the way it's presented in the book, or they can find a new table.
How is this very common issue solved, if we are to also adhere to the idea that Wizards introducing new content to the game via paid books is an abomination that will end the game because the Wizards of ten or fifteen years ago made a mistake with book release schedules?
For a “Witch” it would have to be very careful to not have it be close enough to IRL witchcraft as those are actual religious practices. It would do much better to have it more obviously tied to the fantasy trope of “Witches” so as to not offend actual people, but also have enough reverence for the idea so as that also does not offend any IRL practitioners.
I am making this point as firmly as I can since my wife is a practitioner herself. Please make sure it’s respectful.
As to the lack of “curse/hex” related spells in 5e, those sorts of things would do better as Witch specific class features so as to divorce them from Spellcasting itself. Also, Witches might do well as a “2/3 caster” (Cantrips through 6th-level spells) and then that communal Spellcasting aspect could be what allows for 7th through 9th-level Spellcasting. Maybe even a way to allow that feature to work with other full-casters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard) so as to not develop a feature that only works if there are two of the same class in the party as that would suck eggs.
There is a deity of music in the forgotten realms, Milil. Let's say that someone said that anyone who wants to play a bard just instead plays a cleric, and reflavours their spells to be playing music and channel divinity to surges of inspiration. I'm sure some people could have fun with that, but it just wouldn't feel right. The mechanics would be off, and you would feel like you are playing a cleric, not a bard. That's how it would feel if you played a reflavoured nature cleric or druid as an Occultist. You might be able to make it work, but it wouldn't be as fun as a full class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Here's a question for Kotath, BigLizard, Templar, et al.
What is a player supposed to do when their DM refuses to allow them to modify an existing class or subclass?
No homebrew, no reflavoring, no nada. That player is instructed to play what's in the book, the way it's presented in the book, or they can find a new table.
You answer your own question: you're supposed to play what's in the book or find a new table. The same applies if the DM decides to ban an existing class, or specifically decides that for his setting a class works in a different way, or anything else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Who is the goddess of witches in the Realms?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Mica Burton. Obviously.
... :P
Please do not contact or message me.
I don't think there is one particular goddess for witches.
Presumably depending on the region they pray to Mystra because she is goddess of Magic, Sehanine Moonbow or Chauntea (worshipped in Rashemen where witches held enormous power).
I really think Witch should be a warlock subclass. I think it has the flavor and the theme to go with it. Warlock is also one of those classes where subclass matters a lot. I do agree the toolkit isn't really there for the complete witch feel but I think that would come in cursing class features and maybe some invocations.
DnD subclasses really don't do a good job of making a satisfying alternate to a class.
You can paint a bishop chess piece pink and change its name, but it's still a bishop, and will play the same as one.
5e subclasses are the same. You choose a class, and then pick glitter or varnish. Doesn't matter which you pick, it's still 80% the same class, and will play like that class with all its pros, cons, and mechanical and thematic baggage.
no.......but neither do witches lol. Clerics do.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The whole flavor with Warlock is off though, because pact magic comes from the patron, and the witch wouldn't have such patron
yeah. Witches need a class.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
What are you using for the basis for the Witch concept? Most people seem to be basing it off the Pathfinder Witch which has the patron as a core concept of the character.
Also, wasn't warlock a traditional name for a male witch? :D
Both Warlock and Wizard have been used as the male counterpart of Witch. Though depending on where you look, Warlock is actually a name used to insult male witches as warlock can sometimes mean oath-breaker, liar, or traitor.
Maybe we could just call them Occultists if the witch name is an issue? Since people may not know that witches can actually be male or female.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
HAHAHA!
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I do like the sound of Occultist.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
That your concept of a witch is excessively narrow? You have a specific idea of what a witch is, but folklore and literature does not -- witch doesn't have a consistent meaning beyond 'magical, probably female' (some of them aren't even spellcasters -- e.g. the witch in Hansel and Gretel never casts any spells).
Last I checked bestow curse is on the Cleric spell list. Just about all the Cleric spells can be used as a witch spells and the others can be added as spells gained as it increases in levels....just like in every other Cleric subclass.
The problem is people have a very specific idea in mind when they want a new class and if it's not exactly what they are picturing..... NO! That wont work.
none of the base Cleric features would keep it from making a Witch subclass. Some witches produced undead so why would turn undead be wrong? And the channel divinity feature for a witch would be different from the other subclasses.......use the second chanel divinity feature to flavor it as a witch. Give them proficiency in an alchemist kit.....boom they have a cauldron to brew potions. Edit to add: A Hermit background will give proficiency with a herbalism kit.
turn undead? Channel DIVINITY? all the other spells like flame strike and holy word? one spell and some reflavouring is just......bad.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Here's a question for Kotath, BigLizard, Templar, et al.
What is a player supposed to do when their DM refuses to allow them to modify an existing class or subclass?
No homebrew, no reflavoring, no nada. That player is instructed to play what's in the book, the way it's presented in the book, or they can find a new table.
How is this very common issue solved, if we are to also adhere to the idea that Wizards introducing new content to the game via paid books is an abomination that will end the game because the Wizards of ten or fifteen years ago made a mistake with book release schedules?
Please do not contact or message me.
For a “Witch” it would have to be very careful to not have it be close enough to IRL witchcraft as those are actual religious practices. It would do much better to have it more obviously tied to the fantasy trope of “Witches” so as to not offend actual people, but also have enough reverence for the idea so as that also does not offend any IRL practitioners.
I am making this point as firmly as I can since my wife is a practitioner herself. Please make sure it’s respectful.
As to the lack of “curse/hex” related spells in 5e, those sorts of things would do better as Witch specific class features so as to divorce them from Spellcasting itself. Also, Witches might do well as a “2/3 caster” (Cantrips through 6th-level spells) and then that communal Spellcasting aspect could be what allows for 7th through 9th-level Spellcasting. Maybe even a way to allow that feature to work with other full-casters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard) so as to not develop a feature that only works if there are two of the same class in the party as that would suck eggs.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There is a deity of music in the forgotten realms, Milil. Let's say that someone said that anyone who wants to play a bard just instead plays a cleric, and reflavours their spells to be playing music and channel divinity to surges of inspiration. I'm sure some people could have fun with that, but it just wouldn't feel right. The mechanics would be off, and you would feel like you are playing a cleric, not a bard. That's how it would feel if you played a reflavoured nature cleric or druid as an Occultist. You might be able to make it work, but it wouldn't be as fun as a full class.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
You answer your own question: you're supposed to play what's in the book or find a new table. The same applies if the DM decides to ban an existing class, or specifically decides that for his setting a class works in a different way, or anything else.