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.
What would be disrespectful? I am asking so I dont offend anyone lol.....
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.
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.
Gaming tables aren't infinite. "Just find another table" isn't always an option.
I'm trying to find out why it's such an absolutely godawful taboo for the company what makes the game to make new stuff, and for the players what spend their hobby money on that game to try and tell Wizards what new stuff they want. I know why Lizard hates new rules. I don't know why Kotath, Templar, and the rest are so ferociously against any sort of new content, especially when their other answer is "just make it yourself". Okay - the player is perfectly free to make whatever they like regardless of their design chops, but the company we're all ostensibly paying for their design expertise shouldn't ever make anything new again?
Dubbya Tee Eff. That stance makes no god damned sense, even IF you assume that every table just so happens to oh-so-conveniently have access to an expert homebrew designer who can make something that both hits the thematics and aesthetic right, feels fun and excellent to play, and doesn't shatter the game into unrecoverable pieces.
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.
What would be disrespectful? I am asking so I dont offend anyone lol.....
Well, an assumption that Witches are all about hexing and skulls etc. as one example. The vast majority of actual IRL witchcraft is “white magic” like blessings, healing, and clearing away evil spirits and such. So, if anything called a “witch” is automatically presumed to do nothing but hexes etc. that would most definitely rub some people the wrong way in exactly the same manor as the descriptions of Drow and Orcs rub many POC the wrong way, or the Vistani for are offensive to the Romany peoples, only Witches would be for religious reasons as opposed to racial or ethnic/cultural ones.
By the same token, if it ends up being a direct representation of the IRL Craft, that would be just as bad. That would be like inserting Judaism or Catholicism into D&D as a Class. No bueno.
In fact, I think that issue is likely the single best argument against a “Witch” class, and probably the reason WotC hasn’t done one other than the Warlock.
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.
This also reminds me of the debate that Sorcerers are just bad wizards, why not make them a wizard subclass or even just give the wizard all the sorcerer's stuff and ax them completely. Or some debates off site I've seen saying why not make a ranger a nature fighter or a more martial druid and why not make paladin a martial cleric or a divine fighter? And of course you have the debate of if Artificers should really be casters at all or just make cool magical items that work like some spell effects.
Class definition has never been set in stone despite some of these classes being around for decades. I'm sure there are some people still miffed that paladins aren't required to worship a god to get their powers and can just follow some loose code that they can twist and bend when needed, or that there are no clear cut mechanical punishments for Paladins, Clerics, or Warlocks going against there god/oath/patron. A bard doesn't need to use their instruments to cast spells despite the face that music caster seems to be their shtick. Do I want this things......well I'm indifferent and tend to go with the flow on this sort of stuff. But I find the idea that we need a universal definition to each class a bit impossible when those definitions are still being debated after all these years.
I don't know, I would just like more options and new sub-classes flavor isn't really the best way to go when it just feels like re-skinning a class over and over again. I like the artificer a lot for different reasons, but one of the big one is that its a new class with its own neat features. I don't need 90 new classes, but even a few more would be good for me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Well, an assumption that Witches are all about hexing and skulls etc. as one example. The vast majority of actual IRL witchcraft is “white magic” like blessings, healing, and clearing away evil spirits and such. So, if anything called a “witch” is automatically presumed to do nothing but hexes etc. that would most definitely rub some people the wrong way in exactly the same manor as the descriptions of Drow and Orcs rub many POC the wrong way, or the Vistani for ethnic/cultural reasons, only Witches would be for religious reasons as opposed to racial ones.
By the same token, if it ends up being a direct representation of the IRL Craft, that would be just as bad. That would be like inserting Judaism or Catholicism into D&D as a Class. No bueno.
In fact, I think that issue is likely the single best argument against a “Witch” class, and probably the reason WotC hasn’t done one other than the Warlock.
That's why I like the Occultist name. It's witch adjacent, like the names cleric and priest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
How is anything I said viewed as I don't want new content....I believe I said you could make a 'new' subclass of Cleric for a Witch subclass in fact. And I stand by that....A whole 'NEW' class is not needed for it. Wizards could do an UA subclass for the Cleric (Witch, Occultist, Whatever you want to call it) and it work fine. But, we have already determined You Can't Please Everyone!
The problem is a lot of people see what they want to see and ignore the rest.
How is anything I said viewed as I don't want new content....I believe I said you could make a 'new' subclass of Cleric for a Witch subclass in fact. And I stand by that....A whole 'NEW' class is not needed for it. Wizards could do an UA subclass for the Cleric (Witch, Occultist, Whatever you want to call it) and it work fine. But, we have already determined You Can't Please Everyone!
The problem is a lot of people see what they want to see and ignore the rest.
And we have repeatedly said that, a subclass of cleric wont feel like an Occultist. See my above post a about bards and clerics. A subclass isn't enough.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
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.
Please read the Cleric spell list. I just looked over it and found about 25 cantrips, 1st, and 2nd level spells that would fit a 'Witch'. Do you want me to go through the whole list and give them all? Cantrip: mending, spare the dying, thaumaturgy, toll the dead. 1st: bane, bless, ceremony, command, create water, detect magic, detect poison, guiding bolt, healing word, inflict wounds, purify food and drink, sanctuary. 2nd: augury, blindness/deafness, gentle repose, hold person lesser restoration, locate object, protection from poison, silence.
How is anything I said viewed as I don't want new content....I believe I said you could make a 'new' subclass of Cleric for a Witch subclass in fact. And I stand by that....A whole 'NEW' class is not needed for it. Wizards could do an UA subclass for the Cleric (Witch, Occultist, Whatever you want to call it) and it work fine. But, we have already determined You Can't Please Everyone!
The problem is a lot of people see what they want to see and ignore the rest.
And we have repeatedly said that, a subclass of cleric wont feel like an Occultist. See my above post a about bards and clerics. A subclass isn't enough.
And just because a few have said a subclass wont work doesn't mean it wont. I believe just as many would agree it would work.
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.
Please read the Cleric spell list. I just looked over it and found about 25 cantrips, 1st, and 2nd level spells that would fit a 'Witch'. Do you want me to go through the whole list and give them all? Cantrip: mending, spare the dying, thaumaturgy, toll the dead. 1st: bane, bless, ceremony, command, create water, detect magic, detect poison, guiding bolt, healing word, inflict wounds, purify food and drink, sanctuary. 2nd: augury, blindness/deafness, gentle repose, hold person lesser restoration, locate object, protection from poison, silence.
would you like level 3-9?
But....that is just the spells. They dont serve a god, they gave nothing to do with undead, they cant use divine intervention...... I dont see any similarities.
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.
How is anything I said viewed as I don't want new content....I believe I said you could make a 'new' subclass of Cleric for a Witch subclass in fact. And I stand by that....A whole 'NEW' class is not needed for it. Wizards could do an UA subclass for the Cleric (Witch, Occultist, Whatever you want to call it) and it work fine. But, we have already determined You Can't Please Everyone!
The problem is a lot of people see what they want to see and ignore the rest.
Well, a whole new class isn't needed for clerics, druids, bards, rogues, monks, barbarians, warlocks, paladins, etc. either. Everything could just be a subclass of "Martial Guy" and "Magic Guy" and reflavoured.... we still have the other classes, though. We have a fighter with anger management issues, a fighter who likes backstabbing, a fighter who likes smashing with his fists.... and a magic user with bad memory who writes everything down in a book, a magic user who doesn't bother taking notes and remembers 5 spells by heart, a magic user who doesn't like memorizing and instead outsources that part to someone else and asks for the spells as convenient etc. Oh, also a magic user who likes to sing and a fighter who's sworn an oath.
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.
Templar, reread this. Try to imagine playing a bard, and being forced to use a cleric subclass. That might work, but it wouldn't be great. That would be how trying to play an Occultist as a cleric would feel.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
It's well established why people don't want that. In the 5e system, a cleric subclass is just a cleric with Halloween mask on.
It will have all the cleric mechanics people don't want on an occultist, and will lack the core mechanics and playstyle people would want from it.
You could make sorcerer, warlock, bard, druid, and cleric into wizard subclasses if you wanted. It would technically still work. The result would be them losing everything actually interesting and unique about them.
In a hypothetical 6e, where subclasses are 50% of the class, and able to overwrite core class abilities, it may work. But the 5e class system is badly designed for it, and just results in full classes being turned into subclasses which people hate.
I can sympathize with both sides here. On the one hand if the system has to have a class for every idea, it's unsustainable. It's clear from this thread that people can't agree on what a Witch should be concept wise so how the hell would they agree that a class called "Witch" is what they are looking for? Same with Death Knight.
BUT.
I know first hand that when you have a specific character concept in mind it is kinda satisfying to find that one class/subclass that fits it well.
Like when you play in Forgotten Realms and read about famous elven bladesinger and now you want to be one and sure, you can make an Eldritch Knight or a multiclass fighter/wizard but it's not quite the same feeling. Then you find out that there is a subclass and bam, you're happy.
(and then you learn that it's nothing like the lore but that's beside the point now).
So I kinda understand the longing for a specific Witch class or Death Knight. "I wanna be a death knight!" someone says and wants "death knight" to be written on their character sheet, and not Paladin Oathbreaker or evil cleric from War domain or multiclassed Fighter/Cleric.
A Witch is an archetype. A druidess living alone in the forest, casting specific spells, communing with nature etc. could potentially be called a "Witch from forest x". As could a warlock. Or a wizard specializing in divination or enchantment. She could bear the title of Witch without having levels in a class called Witch. But I get it that some would like Witch to be written on their character sheet because I've been there too.
As long as there is this feeling, this longing for the character mechanics to click just right with our desired character concept, there will always be room for new classes/subclasses.
So everyone just wants to sit around and gripe that the class they see in their mind is not available to choose/play but could be made to work with 'Role Play'
What happens if there is a Witch class but a few months later they are not happy with it. They wanted a Witch that summons demons not one that stands around a cauldron brewing potions and uses ritual magic. What then? You can't please everyone.
What happens if there is a Witch class but a few months later they are not happy with it. They wanted a Witch that summons demons not one that stands around a cauldron brewing potions and uses ritual magic. What then? You can't please everyone.
Those would be subclasses?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What would be disrespectful? I am asking so I dont offend anyone lol.....
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Gaming tables aren't infinite. "Just find another table" isn't always an option.
I'm trying to find out why it's such an absolutely godawful taboo for the company what makes the game to make new stuff, and for the players what spend their hobby money on that game to try and tell Wizards what new stuff they want. I know why Lizard hates new rules. I don't know why Kotath, Templar, and the rest are so ferociously against any sort of new content, especially when their other answer is "just make it yourself". Okay - the player is perfectly free to make whatever they like regardless of their design chops, but the company we're all ostensibly paying for their design expertise shouldn't ever make anything new again?
Dubbya Tee Eff. That stance makes no god damned sense, even IF you assume that every table just so happens to oh-so-conveniently have access to an expert homebrew designer who can make something that both hits the thematics and aesthetic right, feels fun and excellent to play, and doesn't shatter the game into unrecoverable pieces.
Please do not contact or message me.
Well, an assumption that Witches are all about hexing and skulls etc. as one example. The vast majority of actual IRL witchcraft is “white magic” like blessings, healing, and clearing away evil spirits and such. So, if anything called a “witch” is automatically presumed to do nothing but hexes etc. that would most definitely rub some people the wrong way in exactly the same manor as the descriptions of Drow and Orcs rub many POC the wrong way, or the Vistani for are offensive to the Romany peoples, only Witches would be for religious reasons as opposed to racial or ethnic/cultural ones.
By the same token, if it ends up being a direct representation of the IRL Craft, that would be just as bad. That would be like inserting Judaism or Catholicism into D&D as a Class. No bueno.
In fact, I think that issue is likely the single best argument against a “Witch” class, and probably the reason WotC hasn’t done one other than the Warlock.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This also reminds me of the debate that Sorcerers are just bad wizards, why not make them a wizard subclass or even just give the wizard all the sorcerer's stuff and ax them completely. Or some debates off site I've seen saying why not make a ranger a nature fighter or a more martial druid and why not make paladin a martial cleric or a divine fighter? And of course you have the debate of if Artificers should really be casters at all or just make cool magical items that work like some spell effects.
Class definition has never been set in stone despite some of these classes being around for decades. I'm sure there are some people still miffed that paladins aren't required to worship a god to get their powers and can just follow some loose code that they can twist and bend when needed, or that there are no clear cut mechanical punishments for Paladins, Clerics, or Warlocks going against there god/oath/patron. A bard doesn't need to use their instruments to cast spells despite the face that music caster seems to be their shtick. Do I want this things......well I'm indifferent and tend to go with the flow on this sort of stuff. But I find the idea that we need a universal definition to each class a bit impossible when those definitions are still being debated after all these years.
I don't know, I would just like more options and new sub-classes flavor isn't really the best way to go when it just feels like re-skinning a class over and over again. I like the artificer a lot for different reasons, but one of the big one is that its a new class with its own neat features. I don't need 90 new classes, but even a few more would be good for me.
"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
That's why I like the Occultist name. It's witch adjacent, like the names cleric and priest.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Agreed, something “witch adjacent” such as occultist would likely be better.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
How is anything I said viewed as I don't want new content....I believe I said you could make a 'new' subclass of Cleric for a Witch subclass in fact. And I stand by that....A whole 'NEW' class is not needed for it. Wizards could do an UA subclass for the Cleric (Witch, Occultist, Whatever you want to call it) and it work fine. But, we have already determined You Can't Please Everyone!
The problem is a lot of people see what they want to see and ignore the rest.
And we have repeatedly said that, a subclass of cleric wont feel like an Occultist. See my above post a about bards and clerics. A subclass isn't enough.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Please read the Cleric spell list. I just looked over it and found about 25 cantrips, 1st, and 2nd level spells that would fit a 'Witch'. Do you want me to go through the whole list and give them all? Cantrip: mending, spare the dying, thaumaturgy, toll the dead. 1st: bane, bless, ceremony, command, create water, detect magic, detect poison, guiding bolt, healing word, inflict wounds, purify food and drink, sanctuary. 2nd: augury, blindness/deafness, gentle repose, hold person lesser restoration, locate object, protection from poison, silence.
would you like level 3-9?
And just because a few have said a subclass wont work doesn't mean it wont. I believe just as many would agree it would work.
But....that is just the spells. They dont serve a god, they gave nothing to do with undead, they cant use divine intervention...... I dont see any similarities.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Well, a whole new class isn't needed for clerics, druids, bards, rogues, monks, barbarians, warlocks, paladins, etc. either. Everything could just be a subclass of "Martial Guy" and "Magic Guy" and reflavoured.... we still have the other classes, though. We have a fighter with anger management issues, a fighter who likes backstabbing, a fighter who likes smashing with his fists.... and a magic user with bad memory who writes everything down in a book, a magic user who doesn't bother taking notes and remembers 5 spells by heart, a magic user who doesn't like memorizing and instead outsources that part to someone else and asks for the spells as convenient etc. Oh, also a magic user who likes to sing and a fighter who's sworn an oath.
Templar, reread this. Try to imagine playing a bard, and being forced to use a cleric subclass. That might work, but it wouldn't be great. That would be how trying to play an Occultist as a cleric would feel.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
It's well established why people don't want that. In the 5e system, a cleric subclass is just a cleric with Halloween mask on.
It will have all the cleric mechanics people don't want on an occultist, and will lack the core mechanics and playstyle people would want from it.
You could make sorcerer, warlock, bard, druid, and cleric into wizard subclasses if you wanted. It would technically still work. The result would be them losing everything actually interesting and unique about them.
In a hypothetical 6e, where subclasses are 50% of the class, and able to overwrite core class abilities, it may work. But the 5e class system is badly designed for it, and just results in full classes being turned into subclasses which people hate.
Go to Wikki and read what it says there. Not all Witches are the same......some dealt with undead and demons/devils. So, Turn would work.
As far as Deities I don't know all of them in 5e but, I bet i could find one that would work. Probably a Godess of nature could be made to work.
Never go to the D&D Wiki. Avoid that dumpster fire at all costs.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I can sympathize with both sides here. On the one hand if the system has to have a class for every idea, it's unsustainable. It's clear from this thread that people can't agree on what a Witch should be concept wise so how the hell would they agree that a class called "Witch" is what they are looking for? Same with Death Knight.
BUT.
I know first hand that when you have a specific character concept in mind it is kinda satisfying to find that one class/subclass that fits it well.
Like when you play in Forgotten Realms and read about famous elven bladesinger and now you want to be one and sure, you can make an Eldritch Knight or a multiclass fighter/wizard but it's not quite the same feeling. Then you find out that there is a subclass and bam, you're happy.
(and then you learn that it's nothing like the lore but that's beside the point now).
So I kinda understand the longing for a specific Witch class or Death Knight. "I wanna be a death knight!" someone says and wants "death knight" to be written on their character sheet, and not Paladin Oathbreaker or evil cleric from War domain or multiclassed Fighter/Cleric.
A Witch is an archetype. A druidess living alone in the forest, casting specific spells, communing with nature etc. could potentially be called a "Witch from forest x". As could a warlock. Or a wizard specializing in divination or enchantment. She could bear the title of Witch without having levels in a class called Witch. But I get it that some would like Witch to be written on their character sheet because I've been there too.
As long as there is this feeling, this longing for the character mechanics to click just right with our desired character concept, there will always be room for new classes/subclasses.
So everyone just wants to sit around and gripe that the class they see in their mind is not available to choose/play but could be made to work with 'Role Play'
What happens if there is a Witch class but a few months later they are not happy with it. They wanted a Witch that summons demons not one that stands around a cauldron brewing potions and uses ritual magic. What then? You can't please everyone.
Maybe people are getting strings crossed.
Are you looking to make a Wiccan Witch like Juniper Mackenzie, or Wicked Witch of the West, or Yzma, or ...?
"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
Those would be subclasses?
"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