Psionics has been attempted many times, but it never seemed to stick. The funny thing is, they seemed to have a pretty clear idea of what they wanted it to be all along. The core concept remains pretty similar throughout editions.
There is the issue with a lot of people not thinking it fits the overall feel of DnD, but clearly there is at least some interest in it. And there is definitely established lore around ît, in the monsters at least. They tend to go in cycles with the rules. From complicated systems of what is basically spell points, to just a few abilities like the psi-warrior, to nothing at all, then repeat.
There used to be a series of supplements for 2nd edition, all titled 'The Complete' something or other. They were awesome books for lore on particular peoples and classes. They were unfortunately not very good on the rules side, and the cost of production and shelf space lead to a lot of problems financially I hear. But if you are interested in psionics in DnD, try to find a copy of The Compete Psionics Handbook. I used to own it., but just couldn't get buy-in from my group to use it in games.
From what I remember, it is a pretty impressive book. It's basically the entire class and all the powers you could want in one place. A lot of work clearly went into it. It's really worth checking out if psionics are your thing.
Instead of multiclassing, why not just build a subclass of 'Witchy Warlock' (sorry lol, witchy tho) that adds to your spell list and incorporates as much of that as possible? That way you already get the witchy Pacts you mention as options for being a Warlock and add other stuff without actually having to Multiclass. The Matron Patron can be the subclass j/k, since you're a Witchy Warlock. Again that comes back to DM cooperation, but it seems a bit simpler (though having homebrewed an annoying amount of subclasses for fun and learning, I might be biased on how easy that is, and I admit it's often difficult to make a subclass 'work' right and still tonally fit). I haven't tried homebrewing a Warlock, but could you draw whatever else you needed from those other subclasses for a new one; perhaps even reflavored for a better thematic fit? Like some subclasses that allow multiple choices each subclass option (such as the cringily-named Totem Warrior Barbarian, which does have cool mechanical ideas), that could allow for healing vs harming options each time and a chance to swap previous options in some cases.
Honestly, it might be a fun thing to work on and I'm sure I could come up with more subclass spell options. I think the alternative as a subclass would be a Druid with Warlock powers instead of a Cleric, but that doesn't seem as fitting or sensical IMO. Either way it does seem doable as a subclass instead of needing to be a class, though either way I'd bring up the design concept of 'moderate your expectations' simply because of how level progression has worked. Though level progression is probably changing given the Expert Classes UA that directly relates to the idea of new classes as well.
ETA: And for a more serious Patron name, something like 'of Sacred Traditions' to reflect the connection to celestials and such. ETA2: If the idea of a subclass appeals to you, let's start a thread in the appropriate section of the forums to discuss it; I think the idea of separate Priest class that incorporates more of the ideas of Divination makes sense if you want to branch further in that direction as a new Class.
I think for a Witch class or subclass, it needs to have the following components:
Familiars, which are a classic trope with witches
Curses, and I mean an actual curse mechanic, and not a spell. Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft has some guidelines on curses, but I think something more specific is needed to prevent it from being broken.
Divination, and there are plenty of divination spells that fit this sub-theme
Protections and wards against harmful magic and supernatural beings. This one is just to say that if you as a witch can employ harmful magic or summon shady spirits, you should have ways of protecting yourself from that being used against you.
Conjuration of spirits, namely summoning magic or necromancy
Once it has these, you can add whatever else you feel like adding on top of that, since fantasy varies significantly in how witches are portrayed.
As for a Priest subclass, I'm not sure about that one, since anyone can be a priest whether they're magical or not. I think Priest is more of a background thing, and to be honest, all you would probably need is a feat like Ritual Caster (Cleric/Divine) or Magic Initiate (Cleric/Divine) to get that feel.
I really don't see much of anything here that cannot be mostly covered by current choices available to a Warlock build, although it probably would be nice to make a specific patron that could double down on the aspects that reinforce the witch aspects in the Warlock class (perhaps some super-powerful Hag).
Hags are fey, but the Archfey patron doesn't really fit very well. It's definitely more inspired by an aes sídhe, Oberon, 'don't eat anything in the faerie world,' kind of fey. Which is great for those who want that. A different kind of fey patron would be cool. But after reading the suggestions people are making for the theme, I could see a separate class being neat too.
Hags are fey, but the Archfey patron doesn't really fit very well. It's definitely more inspired by an aes sídhe, Oberon, 'don't eat anything in the faerie world,' kind of fey. Which is great for those who want that. A different kind of fey patron would be cool. But after reading the suggestions people are making for the theme, I could see a separate class being neat too.
I just don't find the call for a whole new class particularly realistic, whether it is witch, shaman, warlord, or psionic-themed. True devotees that think that these archetypes are irreproducible through the current classes may take me to task, but given a proper subclass, I think each of them can be reflected through Warlock, Druid, Fighter, and Sorcerer, respectively. However, I agree that none of them has a fully successful representative subclass currently in 5e.
Hags are fey, but the Archfey patron doesn't really fit very well. It's definitely more inspired by an aes sídhe, Oberon, 'don't eat anything in the faerie world,' kind of fey. Which is great for those who want that. A different kind of fey patron would be cool. But after reading the suggestions people are making for the theme, I could see a separate class being neat too.
I just don't find the call for a whole new class particularly realistic, whether it is witch, shaman, warlord, or psionic-themed. True devotees that think that these archetypes are irreproducible through the current classes may take me to task, but given a proper subclass, I think each of them can be reflected through Warlock, Druid, Fighter, and Sorcerer, respectively. However, I agree that none of them has a fully successful representative subclass currently in 5e.
Yeah, I think the likelihood of getting a new class is pretty low. And that a lot of ideas could be covered with good subclasses. Like some have said, you could probably rewrite the whole game to have just 4 classes and tons of subclasses.
But since the thread is about possible new classes, I'm happy to hear people's ideas. There are some I haven't considered before. If they were to go into Psionics, that is the one probably most in need of a full class to do well. Just reflavoring spells isn't very satisfying. It would probably require a long list of powers and a new system.
When I used to introduce people to DnD for the first time, back before there were any livestreams or anything to point them to, I would explain classes as 'the way your character approaches problems.' Kind of like a personality test. When faced with difficulty, what does the character use to overcome it?
Physical strength and resilience?
Skill and quick wits?
Intellect and creative problem solving?
Or Faith and will?
The new Groups kind of work the same way. Collecting classes into the old 4 classics of Fighter, Thief, Mage, and Cleric. Just with a slightly wider net. Most of the same questions I used to ask still apply. Only the Mage group gets a little weird. Because it focuses on the type of magic, not necessarily the approach to using it. Warlocks and Sorcerers, at least in lore, approach problems very differently from Wizards. Warlocks sought out (or were found by) some powerful thing for a shortcut to their own power. Sorcerers were just born sexy and started blasting. Maybe you could still consider those creative solutions.
If I were to redesign classes from the ground up into broad groups, I would probably group them differently. I would likely base them on theme. On their approach to solving problems. It would definitely change the way we relate to some of them. I think of Artificers more like Wizards than Rogues. I wish Sorcerors were CON based warriors with powers, more like X-Men mutants I associate them with. Warlocks have faith like a priest, even if it is often reluctant or even antagonistic. They KNOW a greater power exists, they depend on it, they appeal to it, and sometimes they hate it.
Or you could go with battlefield role, kind of like 4e. Or source of power like this playtest. Or just have warriors, full spellcasters, and half caster/warriors.
But I think most of the classes we have are here to stay. They are part of what makes DnD unique. They are woven into its fabric for better or worse. And the playtest groups are as good as any idea. If Artificer is an Expert, another class for each of the remaining 3 could be cool.
Curses, on the other hand, is something they don't really do in the way I would like, and that's because of the relatively open-ended nature of curses.
Really, curses are more of a DM thing than a player thing, because their nature tends to be 'long term bad effects', and typical PC attitude is "who cares about long term bad effects on a target that's gonna be dead in another two rounds".
I'd want a Witch class because there are so many cool and unique things Witches could do. They could have curses, they could practice rituals and dark incantations, they could have their own version of magic and their own types of Witch blades and things they could do with those blades. Lore wise, there could be different types of witches, the incantations and rituals could have more than just names, they could have elaborate histories. Not only that, but there could be Witch orders, Witch stories, and honestly, there are so many cool and unique things you could do with a Witch class that I don't see why anyone wouldn't want them in the game.
"But you could just play a reskinned Warlock and flavor it as a Witch." But I don't want to be a Warlock, I want to have my lore and history match up with the actual mechanics of the character I play. I want to not be just a Witch in name but I want to have the powers an actual Witch could wield.
"Fine then, you can have a subclass, you can build a mechanical Witch out of feats." I don't want to just have a subclass, I want my Witch to have more Witch features than Warlock features, and I want more options for my Witch than just the features of one subclass that I would have to use over and over to play a Witch. And yes, I could theoretically build a Witch out of feats and weird multiclassing. But I don't want my Witch to have the features of a level 1 Sorcerer and a couple of levels of Warlock. I don't want my Witch to have one "Witchy" feat that is supposed to emulate the features of what could be a whole class. That would not be or feel like a Witch, it would just feel like a weird, cobbled together, build that isn't really much of anything and certainly doesn't feel like a fully, fleshed out Witch with lots of cool unique features if any of those other classes could just take any of those features.
Theoretically, you could build a class concept out of anything. I could be a ranged fighter with a couple of feats and magic items and I could call myself a Ranger. But I shouldn't have to grab those magic items, feats, or take one specific subclass. I should have more choices and cool abilities that are unique and don't just feel sort of like they might be a Witch, but ones that really are a Witch.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
"But you could just play a reskinned Warlock and flavor it as a Witch." But I don't want to be a Warlock, I want to have my lore and history match up with the actual mechanics of the character I play. I want to not be just a Witch in name but I want to have the powers an actual Witch could wield.
The actual lore and history of witches is "normal people who got killed for a variety of bad reasons". The fantasy lore for witches is largely indistinguishable from any other sort of magician, other than being predominantly female.
The actual lore and history of witches is "normal people who got killed for a variety of bad reasons". The fantasy lore for witches is largely indistinguishable from any other sort of magician, other than being predominantly female.
TL;DR: The fantasy lore for Witches is actually very distinguishable from other magicians. If WotC doesn't feel it's distinct enough, then they can add more distinctions as they did to help differentiate Sorcerers and Wizards.
Yeah, but I mean like the actual fantasy lore since Witches didn't really exist. And the fantasy lore is "dark magicians who use curses, rituals, and incantations." That lore is very different from other magicians such as Wizards whose fantasy lore is just "old men with beards and pointy hats who use magic." Anyways, fantasy lore wise, there isn't much of any distinction between many of the classes that use some form of magic; no one in any fantasy book, such as LotR, said that there was any distinction between Sorcerers and Wizards. In other fantasy books, the term Warlock was often used interchangeably to describe the two.
This is a fantasy game so we will of course be talking about the fantasy lore; and Witches have fantasy lore that distinguishes them from other magicians in ways the other spellcasting classes didn't until WotC went off and started inventing distinctions. Witch already has fantasy lore you can build off in ways the other magic user classes didn't, if WotC feels that there isn't enough of a distinction, then they can always just invent or add ones as they did in the examples above. A good "how they got there magic" distinction WotC could make is this: Some people are born with the rare gene that gives them the ability to understand and use the ancient rituals and incantations of the Witches. Most aren't. Those with the gene can be taught those rituals, incantations, and curses by other Witches, or perhaps they stumbled upon a book describing them. Those without the gene will call the rituals junk and spiritual garbage as they often fail to see the veiled magic hidden right before their eyes. But the Witches learn that magic and use it for the better of the world... or for the better of themselves.
Anyways, as I explained above, distinct fantasy lore doesn't seem to be an important factor for WotC (though Witches have plenty of it); What the class can do mechanically seems to matter more, and Witches have plenty they can do mechanically. As I described in the above post, Witches have curses, incantations, rituals, and more that can be used mechanically. There are so many cool things you could do with a Witch class, I really don't see why there shouldn't be one.
I do see a lot of folks would have liked to see psionics make a comeback (so would I) but here are some classes I would like to see and the reasons, I would also label what group they can fit in.
Priest Group:
Shaman, I do see how everyone can see this as an option for the Druid class, but I think that's only if you stick to the whole theme of nature. It's very possible to make Shamans distinct class because real world and fantasy lore these individuals practiced communicating with spirits of all types. Not just ones in animals, plants and the elements but also of ideals, concepts, objects and even people. If anything, we can re-purpose the two subclasses of the Barbarian (Path of Ancestral Guardian & Path of Totem Warrior) to be features or subclasses for the shaman. And since many cultures in North America, Asia, and Africa (Witch Doctors have been tied to them due to be similar practices) practice Shamanism we can draw on my sources for this idea. One key point I would like to highlight is how the shamans form of worship would be different, Clerics draw on domains of divine power, Paladins draw on their own Oaths (which has elements of codes of honor that must be followed), Druids draw on parts of Nature or all of it as a whole, Shamans can have their spells from the Primal list since the Spirits they commune with are focused on the Material Plane.
Expert Group: I just want to make a mention that I like that they put Artificers here because they're magic item experts
Mage Group: I do recall they did have the Mystic base class in the UA for 5e as a way to playtest but don't know what happened to it so I hope to see it make a comeback for playtesting so wwe can bring back psionics.
Warrior Group: Back in 3.5 edition they introduced a supplement book called "Tomb of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords" it introduced a brand-new martial system that allowed martial classes to compete with spellcasters. The martial system was called "The Sublime Way" and it had nine schools of fighting styles that were very distinct, here's a link to the wiki for the info: Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords - Wikipedia , Now I would love to get into more details about because it was a very interesting idea to give martial classes their own combat system that was very similar to the magic system but I want to focus on a new base class they introduced in it called "The Swordsage". This class should make a comeback along with that martial system.
Actually the shaman and the druid (as stated in D&D) fall on the same ground. Obviously they could give it a spin with the theme of the spirits, but even so I see them quite similar thematically. Perhaps more than a shaman, if what you want is to make a class that revolves around spirits, it would be more appropriate to call it animist. Actually, shamanism is a type of animism, so we would be turning on the same thing. Another option would be a primal warrior, but that sounds a lot like the ranger. So I didn't like it either. I don't know, I see the subject of the priests covered quite a bit with what's out there now. It's hard for me to think of a class that fits and doesn't step on the ground of something that already exists in the game.
The Swordsage, sounds a lot like a fighter subclass. I would go for something like Gish here, since the warrior group is the only one that doesn't have any casters. I would actually do the Gish class, and there I would put the Bladesinger, the Arcane Knight, the Arcane Archer (with spells and not now) and some other subclass concept that might fit. For example, the elemental warrior. There are many options for Gish, he just has to be a warrior who uses arcane magic.
Well, the Primal warrior is definitely tied with the Ranger right now so it would be very difficult to make something that doesn't step into the capabilities of the Ranger or Druid, but every class in the Priest group are capable of martial combat and WotC seem to prefer making the Barbarian the primal warrior class with new subclasses which for me that seems right so we might not need one. I argue for the Shaman being its own class because we can find a way to make it separate like how Cleric and Paladins where too similar thematically in past editions until in 5e made the distinction better through spellcasting ability, martial focus, where the source of divine power comes from, and subclasses.
As for the Swordsage I did try to see if it can be a good subclass for the fighter but I realized it cannot because that class was more themed heavily towards using the "Sublime Way", it uses weapons, armor and feats a lot less in comparison to martial classes but compensates with a wider selection of maneuvers, it's better to look at it like the martial version of the Wizard which I think it can provide a good opportunity to introduce a martial class that functions more heavily as a wuxia martialist using a an established martial system.
I'm working on making a homebrew of that class and bring back the whole "Sublime Way" system so that I can really test out how it can work and create a reason for how the other martial classes can acquire maneuvers from the martial system.
I think we have a solid base now for a Primal gish with the Ranger, and a Divine gish one with the Paladin. They are pretty effective at taking the idea of a warrior and looking at what that character would be with those sources of magic applied to them. That's not to say you couldn't come up with other types too, just that they work well with enough subclasses to fill in the gaps.
So I definitely agree it's time for a proper Arcane gish, rolling in all the subclasses mentioned like bladesinger and arcane archer. This is probably the most obvious new class they could make. They already have a lot of ideas that just usually don't feel very developed right now. There is a clear gap in the current arrangement of classes. They don't have to make up a new system of spells or powers.
I just don't know if it fits better in the Warrior group or the Mage group. They put Ranger in Expert, and Paladin in Priest. Expert is also getting Artificer for their fourth class. I think Mage might be best from a design perspective, since the Primal and Divine gishes are not in Warriors, and an Arcane gish should probably follow the same pattern of going in the group with the magic it uses.
I agree that a true arcane gish is needed now, I think they might have tried that with the Blood Hunter since it's an Arcane warrior class, but it could easily be rolled into a couple of subclasses for the real gish base class. A good start would properly be the Duskblade base class they had in 3.5, it's tailored more towards close range spells and you can channel spells through the melee weapon, very appropriate for Mage group.
Just a side note, but the Blood Hunter is not a class WoTC designed. It hasn't even been given the go-ahead as a third-party designed class. It's Matthew Mercer's homebrew, and nothing more. It's on DnDBeyond because of Mercer's business relationship with the company, but it's not official in any sense. And WoTC has nothing to do with that class. You have to be careful with that because I see a lot of people commenting on Blood hunter as if it's official WoTC, and it's not. It's homebrew.
A different case are the subclasses that Matt Mercer designed for Wildemount. That did pass the approval of WoTC, although they are not 100% official. There we would be talking about third-party material, but accepted. Perhaps a step above other third-party material.
Shaman, I do see how everyone can see this as an option for the Druid class, but I think that's only if you stick to the whole theme of nature. It's very possible to make Shamans distinct class because real world and fantasy lore these individuals practiced communicating with spirits of all types. Not just ones in animals, plants and the elements but also of ideals, concepts, objects and even people. If anything, we can re-purpose the two subclasses of the Barbarian (Path of Ancestral Guardian & Path of Totem Warrior) to be features or subclasses for the shaman. And since many cultures in North America, Asia, and Africa (Witch Doctors have been tied to them due to be similar practices) practice Shamanism we can draw on my sources for this idea. One key point I would like to highlight is how the shamans form of worship would be different, Clerics draw on domains of divine power, Paladins draw on their own Oaths (which has elements of codes of honor that must be followed), Druids draw on parts of Nature or all of it as a whole, Shamans can have their spells from the Primal list since the Spirits they commune with are focused on the Material Plane.
Mage Group: I do recall they did have the Mystic base class in the UA for 5e as a way to playtest but don't know what happened to it so I hope to see it make a comeback for playtesting so wwe can bring back psionics.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: there would be endless possibilities with a Witch class. It could either be in the Mage or Priest group depending on how it's done and/or which group would be more convenient for WoTC. A Blood Hunter and psion would also be classes I'd love to see.
Just a side note, but the Blood Hunter is not a class WoTC designed. It hasn't even been given the go-ahead as a third-party designed class. It's Matthew Mercer's homebrew, and nothing more. It's on DnDBeyond because of Mercer's business relationship with the company, but it's not official in any sense. And WoTC has nothing to do with that class. You have to be careful with that because I see a lot of people commenting on Blood hunter as if it's official WoTC, and it's not. It's homebrew.
Fair enough, but the fact that WoTC now owns DDB and has decided to keep it up means they are directly affiliated with the class. Not only that, but they have worked on several books with Mercer, the maker of this class. So I'd say it is a popular homebrew class that WoTC has made available on their website (DDB), as they have done with no other class. Having Blood Hunter be made an official class would certainly be awesome and I don't think that when compared to adding other classes, it would be too unrealistic.
PS- Did anyone notice that there are four different players in the average D&D group, and now there are four different "types" of classes as well. I wonder if WotC is going to advice that about one of each type should be in each adventuring party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Psionics has been attempted many times, but it never seemed to stick. The funny thing is, they seemed to have a pretty clear idea of what they wanted it to be all along. The core concept remains pretty similar throughout editions.
There is the issue with a lot of people not thinking it fits the overall feel of DnD, but clearly there is at least some interest in it. And there is definitely established lore around ît, in the monsters at least. They tend to go in cycles with the rules. From complicated systems of what is basically spell points, to just a few abilities like the psi-warrior, to nothing at all, then repeat.
There used to be a series of supplements for 2nd edition, all titled 'The Complete' something or other. They were awesome books for lore on particular peoples and classes. They were unfortunately not very good on the rules side, and the cost of production and shelf space lead to a lot of problems financially I hear. But if you are interested in psionics in DnD, try to find a copy of The Compete Psionics Handbook. I used to own it., but just couldn't get buy-in from my group to use it in games.
From what I remember, it is a pretty impressive book. It's basically the entire class and all the powers you could want in one place. A lot of work clearly went into it. It's really worth checking out if psionics are your thing.
Thank you 🙏🏾
I really don't see much of anything here that cannot be mostly covered by current choices available to a Warlock build, although it probably would be nice to make a specific patron that could double down on the aspects that reinforce the witch aspects in the Warlock class (perhaps some super-powerful Hag).
Hags are fey, but the Archfey patron doesn't really fit very well. It's definitely more inspired by an aes sídhe, Oberon, 'don't eat anything in the faerie world,' kind of fey. Which is great for those who want that. A different kind of fey patron would be cool. But after reading the suggestions people are making for the theme, I could see a separate class being neat too.
I just don't find the call for a whole new class particularly realistic, whether it is witch, shaman, warlord, or psionic-themed. True devotees that think that these archetypes are irreproducible through the current classes may take me to task, but given a proper subclass, I think each of them can be reflected through Warlock, Druid, Fighter, and Sorcerer, respectively. However, I agree that none of them has a fully successful representative subclass currently in 5e.
Yeah, I think the likelihood of getting a new class is pretty low. And that a lot of ideas could be covered with good subclasses. Like some have said, you could probably rewrite the whole game to have just 4 classes and tons of subclasses.
But since the thread is about possible new classes, I'm happy to hear people's ideas. There are some I haven't considered before. If they were to go into Psionics, that is the one probably most in need of a full class to do well. Just reflavoring spells isn't very satisfying. It would probably require a long list of powers and a new system.
When I used to introduce people to DnD for the first time, back before there were any livestreams or anything to point them to, I would explain classes as 'the way your character approaches problems.' Kind of like a personality test. When faced with difficulty, what does the character use to overcome it?
Physical strength and resilience?
Skill and quick wits?
Intellect and creative problem solving?
Or Faith and will?
The new Groups kind of work the same way. Collecting classes into the old 4 classics of Fighter, Thief, Mage, and Cleric. Just with a slightly wider net. Most of the same questions I used to ask still apply. Only the Mage group gets a little weird. Because it focuses on the type of magic, not necessarily the approach to using it. Warlocks and Sorcerers, at least in lore, approach problems very differently from Wizards. Warlocks sought out (or were found by) some powerful thing for a shortcut to their own power. Sorcerers were just born sexy and started blasting. Maybe you could still consider those creative solutions.
If I were to redesign classes from the ground up into broad groups, I would probably group them differently. I would likely base them on theme. On their approach to solving problems. It would definitely change the way we relate to some of them. I think of Artificers more like Wizards than Rogues. I wish Sorcerors were CON based warriors with powers, more like X-Men mutants I associate them with. Warlocks have faith like a priest, even if it is often reluctant or even antagonistic. They KNOW a greater power exists, they depend on it, they appeal to it, and sometimes they hate it.
Or you could go with battlefield role, kind of like 4e. Or source of power like this playtest. Or just have warriors, full spellcasters, and half caster/warriors.
But I think most of the classes we have are here to stay. They are part of what makes DnD unique. They are woven into its fabric for better or worse. And the playtest groups are as good as any idea. If Artificer is an Expert, another class for each of the remaining 3 could be cool.
Really, curses are more of a DM thing than a player thing, because their nature tends to be 'long term bad effects', and typical PC attitude is "who cares about long term bad effects on a target that's gonna be dead in another two rounds".
TL;DR: WITCH SHOULD BE A CLASS!
I'd want a Witch class because there are so many cool and unique things Witches could do. They could have curses, they could practice rituals and dark incantations, they could have their own version of magic and their own types of Witch blades and things they could do with those blades. Lore wise, there could be different types of witches, the incantations and rituals could have more than just names, they could have elaborate histories. Not only that, but there could be Witch orders, Witch stories, and honestly, there are so many cool and unique things you could do with a Witch class that I don't see why anyone wouldn't want them in the game.
"But you could just play a reskinned Warlock and flavor it as a Witch." But I don't want to be a Warlock, I want to have my lore and history match up with the actual mechanics of the character I play. I want to not be just a Witch in name but I want to have the powers an actual Witch could wield.
"Fine then, you can have a subclass, you can build a mechanical Witch out of feats." I don't want to just have a subclass, I want my Witch to have more Witch features than Warlock features, and I want more options for my Witch than just the features of one subclass that I would have to use over and over to play a Witch. And yes, I could theoretically build a Witch out of feats and weird multiclassing. But I don't want my Witch to have the features of a level 1 Sorcerer and a couple of levels of Warlock. I don't want my Witch to have one "Witchy" feat that is supposed to emulate the features of what could be a whole class. That would not be or feel like a Witch, it would just feel like a weird, cobbled together, build that isn't really much of anything and certainly doesn't feel like a fully, fleshed out Witch with lots of cool unique features if any of those other classes could just take any of those features.
Theoretically, you could build a class concept out of anything. I could be a ranged fighter with a couple of feats and magic items and I could call myself a Ranger. But I shouldn't have to grab those magic items, feats, or take one specific subclass. I should have more choices and cool abilities that are unique and don't just feel sort of like they might be a Witch, but ones that really are a Witch.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.The actual lore and history of witches is "normal people who got killed for a variety of bad reasons". The fantasy lore for witches is largely indistinguishable from any other sort of magician, other than being predominantly female.
TL;DR: The fantasy lore for Witches is actually very distinguishable from other magicians. If WotC doesn't feel it's distinct enough, then they can add more distinctions as they did to help differentiate Sorcerers and Wizards.
Yeah, but I mean like the actual fantasy lore since Witches didn't really exist. And the fantasy lore is "dark magicians who use curses, rituals, and incantations." That lore is very different from other magicians such as Wizards whose fantasy lore is just "old men with beards and pointy hats who use magic." Anyways, fantasy lore wise, there isn't much of any distinction between many of the classes that use some form of magic; no one in any fantasy book, such as LotR, said that there was any distinction between Sorcerers and Wizards. In other fantasy books, the term Warlock was often used interchangeably to describe the two.
This is a fantasy game so we will of course be talking about the fantasy lore; and Witches have fantasy lore that distinguishes them from other magicians in ways the other spellcasting classes didn't until WotC went off and started inventing distinctions. Witch already has fantasy lore you can build off in ways the other magic user classes didn't, if WotC feels that there isn't enough of a distinction, then they can always just invent or add ones as they did in the examples above. A good "how they got there magic" distinction WotC could make is this: Some people are born with the rare gene that gives them the ability to understand and use the ancient rituals and incantations of the Witches. Most aren't. Those with the gene can be taught those rituals, incantations, and curses by other Witches, or perhaps they stumbled upon a book describing them. Those without the gene will call the rituals junk and spiritual garbage as they often fail to see the veiled magic hidden right before their eyes. But the Witches learn that magic and use it for the better of the world... or for the better of themselves.
Anyways, as I explained above, distinct fantasy lore doesn't seem to be an important factor for WotC (though Witches have plenty of it); What the class can do mechanically seems to matter more, and Witches have plenty they can do mechanically. As I described in the above post, Witches have curses, incantations, rituals, and more that can be used mechanically. There are so many cool things you could do with a Witch class, I really don't see why there shouldn't be one.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I do see a lot of folks would have liked to see psionics make a comeback (so would I) but here are some classes I would like to see and the reasons, I would also label what group they can fit in.
Priest Group:
Shaman, I do see how everyone can see this as an option for the Druid class, but I think that's only if you stick to the whole theme of nature. It's very possible to make Shamans distinct class because real world and fantasy lore these individuals practiced communicating with spirits of all types. Not just ones in animals, plants and the elements but also of ideals, concepts, objects and even people. If anything, we can re-purpose the two subclasses of the Barbarian (Path of Ancestral Guardian & Path of Totem Warrior) to be features or subclasses for the shaman. And since many cultures in North America, Asia, and Africa (Witch Doctors have been tied to them due to be similar practices) practice Shamanism we can draw on my sources for this idea. One key point I would like to highlight is how the shamans form of worship would be different, Clerics draw on domains of divine power, Paladins draw on their own Oaths (which has elements of codes of honor that must be followed), Druids draw on parts of Nature or all of it as a whole, Shamans can have their spells from the Primal list since the Spirits they commune with are focused on the Material Plane.
Expert Group:
I just want to make a mention that I like that they put Artificers here because they're magic item experts
Mage Group:
I do recall they did have the Mystic base class in the UA for 5e as a way to playtest but don't know what happened to it so I hope to see it make a comeback for playtesting so wwe can bring back psionics.
Warrior Group:
Back in 3.5 edition they introduced a supplement book called "Tomb of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords" it introduced a brand-new martial system that allowed martial classes to compete with spellcasters. The martial system was called "The Sublime Way" and it had nine schools of fighting styles that were very distinct, here's a link to the wiki for the info: Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords - Wikipedia , Now I would love to get into more details about because it was a very interesting idea to give martial classes their own combat system that was very similar to the magic system but I want to focus on a new base class they introduced in it called "The Swordsage". This class should make a comeback along with that martial system.
Actually the shaman and the druid (as stated in D&D) fall on the same ground. Obviously they could give it a spin with the theme of the spirits, but even so I see them quite similar thematically. Perhaps more than a shaman, if what you want is to make a class that revolves around spirits, it would be more appropriate to call it animist. Actually, shamanism is a type of animism, so we would be turning on the same thing.
Another option would be a primal warrior, but that sounds a lot like the ranger. So I didn't like it either.
I don't know, I see the subject of the priests covered quite a bit with what's out there now. It's hard for me to think of a class that fits and doesn't step on the ground of something that already exists in the game.
The Swordsage, sounds a lot like a fighter subclass. I would go for something like Gish here, since the warrior group is the only one that doesn't have any casters. I would actually do the Gish class, and there I would put the Bladesinger, the Arcane Knight, the Arcane Archer (with spells and not now) and some other subclass concept that might fit. For example, the elemental warrior. There are many options for Gish, he just has to be a warrior who uses arcane magic.
Well, the Primal warrior is definitely tied with the Ranger right now so it would be very difficult to make something that doesn't step into the capabilities of the Ranger or Druid, but every class in the Priest group are capable of martial combat and WotC seem to prefer making the Barbarian the primal warrior class with new subclasses which for me that seems right so we might not need one. I argue for the Shaman being its own class because we can find a way to make it separate like how Cleric and Paladins where too similar thematically in past editions until in 5e made the distinction better through spellcasting ability, martial focus, where the source of divine power comes from, and subclasses.
As for the Swordsage I did try to see if it can be a good subclass for the fighter but I realized it cannot because that class was more themed heavily towards using the "Sublime Way", it uses weapons, armor and feats a lot less in comparison to martial classes but compensates with a wider selection of maneuvers, it's better to look at it like the martial version of the Wizard which I think it can provide a good opportunity to introduce a martial class that functions more heavily as a wuxia martialist using a an established martial system.
I'm working on making a homebrew of that class and bring back the whole "Sublime Way" system so that I can really test out how it can work and create a reason for how the other martial classes can acquire maneuvers from the martial system.
I think we have a solid base now for a Primal gish with the Ranger, and a Divine gish one with the Paladin. They are pretty effective at taking the idea of a warrior and looking at what that character would be with those sources of magic applied to them. That's not to say you couldn't come up with other types too, just that they work well with enough subclasses to fill in the gaps.
So I definitely agree it's time for a proper Arcane gish, rolling in all the subclasses mentioned like bladesinger and arcane archer. This is probably the most obvious new class they could make. They already have a lot of ideas that just usually don't feel very developed right now. There is a clear gap in the current arrangement of classes. They don't have to make up a new system of spells or powers.
I just don't know if it fits better in the Warrior group or the Mage group. They put Ranger in Expert, and Paladin in Priest. Expert is also getting Artificer for their fourth class. I think Mage might be best from a design perspective, since the Primal and Divine gishes are not in Warriors, and an Arcane gish should probably follow the same pattern of going in the group with the magic it uses.
I agree that a true arcane gish is needed now, I think they might have tried that with the Blood Hunter since it's an Arcane warrior class, but it could easily be rolled into a couple of subclasses for the real gish base class. A good start would properly be the Duskblade base class they had in 3.5, it's tailored more towards close range spells and you can channel spells through the melee weapon, very appropriate for Mage group.
Just a side note, but the Blood Hunter is not a class WoTC designed. It hasn't even been given the go-ahead as a third-party designed class. It's Matthew Mercer's homebrew, and nothing more. It's on DnDBeyond because of Mercer's business relationship with the company, but it's not official in any sense. And WoTC has nothing to do with that class. You have to be careful with that because I see a lot of people commenting on Blood hunter as if it's official WoTC, and it's not. It's homebrew.
A different case are the subclasses that Matt Mercer designed for Wildemount. That did pass the approval of WoTC, although they are not 100% official. There we would be talking about third-party material, but accepted. Perhaps a step above other third-party material.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: there would be endless possibilities with a Witch class. It could either be in the Mage or Priest group depending on how it's done and/or which group would be more convenient for WoTC. A Blood Hunter and psion would also be classes I'd love to see.
Fair enough, but the fact that WoTC now owns DDB and has decided to keep it up means they are directly affiliated with the class. Not only that, but they have worked on several books with Mercer, the maker of this class. So I'd say it is a popular homebrew class that WoTC has made available on their website (DDB), as they have done with no other class. Having Blood Hunter be made an official class would certainly be awesome and I don't think that when compared to adding other classes, it would be too unrealistic.
PS- Did anyone notice that there are four different players in the average D&D group, and now there are four different "types" of classes as well. I wonder if WotC is going to advice that about one of each type should be in each adventuring party.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.