Witches, or users of witchcraft, have a long-standing tradition in fantasy tales. They are often maligned for wielding power misunderstood by others, and their ways are often mysterious, weird, or otherwise unsettling.
Psionics have been explored throughout D&D's history, but it has been ill-defined, broadly encompassing, and treated much like your proverbial red-headed stepchild. One of the major resistances to psionic power by the D&D-playing community at large is that is doesn't "feel" like a fantasy trope, and that it is more appropriately reserved for sci-fi settings. 4E did wonderful things for psionics, from a story perspective, by giving it a place within the fantasy world and adding its existence to the larger canonical tale of the game.
Psionics, aside from being the power of the mind, has little fantasy flavor going for it. Many state that the psion is merely a wizard, and there is ample justification for such an assertion. There is a failure to be recognized in that psions, and other psionic characters, have little fluff outside of their mechanical capabilities.
Psionics, much like witchcraft, have come to be regarded in the D&D realm as an anathema to the ways of the world; something mysterious, weird, or otherwise unsettling.
Why not marry the concepts?
There's endless flavor and story to be mined from witches and witchcraft, there is a commonly-enough encountered call to add a witch class to the game, and there is an underutilized explanation of power waiting to be given absolute standing in a PHB1 ready to go.
Re-brand psionics as witchcraft, re-dub the psion "witch," and bake in all of the neglected stories of witchy goodness that lie awaiting plunder.
It would certainly make me feel far more comfortable with psionics in my game. -- From a flavor-taste standpoint.
To me, the term "witch" has always had the same dark stigma as "warlock," so I've taken to using it in-game as a way to show prejudice against un-sanctified spellcasters. Wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks would all be "witches" in the eyes of the ignorant peasant.
I've never really had a problem with psionics. It does seem kind of SF, but not enough to really bother me; it's not as bad as space aliens, or lost technology. Especially in a world where other forms of magic are well understood and perfectly reliable, the ability to draw power from the self rather than from the inner or outer planes doesn't seem that far-fetched. A psion or wilder would be every bit as much a "witch" as a sorcerer or warlock would be in the eyes of the peasant, though.
Of course, my preferred way to deal with psionics is with something aking to wild talents - everyone has some power locked within themselves, but nobody has quite the variety of different powers as the combined might of either the inner or outer planes. I might have been influenced by the Heralds of Valdemar in that regard (which is a decent example of how to get around the SF overtones).
After integrating psionics into my games in various ways, I finally decided to kill it and roll it into arcane magic. I think there was a lot of redundancy between enchanters and psions anyway (except for power points, but I never liked spell slots anyway and pre-4e I generally found or made alternate mana point systems).
Like Saelorn, I prefer to use "witch" as an in-game label rather than as a class.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
The word “witch” probably derives from “wicked”, and specifically refers to black magic and curses. Similarly, I suspect the term “warlock” meaning “oath breaker”, similarly refers to black magic - in the sense of a male behaving cowardly and resorting to black magic, instead of fighting honorably. In Norse tradition, this gender division is evident. Its equivalent of witchcraft is actually psionic, sotospeak, seiðr literally messes with the mind of the victim. It was fine if females attacked people using seiðr, but for males to do it, it was considered “unmanly” in the sense of cowardly and unfair.
Interestingly, in the case of an other form of Norse magic, spá, relating to prophecy, “second sight”, true seeing, intuitions, and so on, it was admirable for both males and females to exhibit the gift, and Norse culture highly valued such individuals.
I also believe witch is an in-game term. Maybye if Psionics was power of the soul instead of the mind more people would allow it? I don't have a problem with Psioncs myself but others seem to.
Personally, I think themes are the right slot for this peg. A witch, in the broadest of definitions, is an individual with knowledge of the supernatural who is unsanctioned by society. Effectively, that could be any spellcaster from a sorcerer to a paladin (if pallies get spells this edition that is). Any self-taught, unaffiliated, or slightly shady spellcaster could be considered a witch.
I imagine a cranky old cleric, with the hypothetical agriculture domain, living on the edge of a village. Most of what she says doesn't make sense, and the rest of the villagers avoid her. Maybe she's a little crazy, but when someone is hurt or sick she's the one you should ask. I'd consider her a witch.
After integrating psionics into my games in various ways, I finally decided to kill it and roll it into arcane magic. I think there was a lot of redundancy between enchanters and psions anyway (except for power points, but I never liked spell slots anyway and pre-4e I generally found or made alternate mana point systems).
Like Saelorn, I prefer to use "witch" as an in-game label rather than as a class.
I think D&D can do both. First call the psionic power source the “psychic” power source instead. This lets it fit into the traditional D&D milieu.
Then, the arcane power source clearly encompasses the psychic “Enchantment” school, including charm, and other mental effects, and so on.
But really, divine is the source that encompasses the psychic “Divination” school. Forseeing the future and speaking prophecies and oracles, is an intensely divine thing to do.
Now the psychic power source is a kind of specialist that focuses on the psychic schools of both arcane and divine.
A psychic class can be called the Psion or Telepath, or so on. From Norse tradition, I would even call it the Seid, a Witch who messes with peoples minds, and specializes in the Enchantment powers of charm, fear, hallucenation, delusion, and so on. But would also cover the psychic Divination powers of foreseeing the future, clairvoyance thru crystal pools, and so on.
All points of the OP are very interesting, but I have a very deeply ingrained preference for the hag-styled witch of typical fantasy. That is, I like the concept of them being an arcane sorcerer-type, with spooky cauldrons and magic potions and spell books written in blood. Basically, a wizard with some some serious hygiene issues.
Then there's the more Wiccan style witch, which closer resembles a druid. But, unless you are playing in a campaign with a more historical-theme, this really wouldn't be appropriate.
Psionics are cool, but aside from being able to do some similar mentalist effects like divination, telepathy, telekinesis, etc., I don't see witches as psionic by nature since their powers, both in the fantasy sense and the practical sense of the examples above, are drawn form outside sources.
I think the psion or mentalist is better off being its own thing.
I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.
Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.
This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).
The Basic boxed set contains:
Quick Start Rules A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms. Player's Handbook (Softcover, 125 pages) Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level. Dungeon Master's Guide (Softcover, 125 pages) Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.
Monster Manual (Softcover, 100 pages) Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D.
Introductory Adventure (Keep on the Borderlands) An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.
Also includes:
Character Sheets Reference Sheets Set of Dice
ExpertSet
A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:
Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.) Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.) Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)
Expansions
These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.)
Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book) Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book) Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book) The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on DamageShow
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points
In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...
What are hit points? The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.
So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then? It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.
But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target? Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.
Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact? Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.
If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent? Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.
Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack? It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.
What about poison and other types of non-combat damage? Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.
If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages? Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.
What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points? If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.
Why are monsters killed immediately and not players? Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.
What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage? If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).
Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded? See below.
Damage and Dying
Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.
Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly.
Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.
Unharmed: 1 hp or more Wounded: 0 hp or less Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level) Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)
Wounded When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.
Incapacitated Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).
If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.
If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.
Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.
Dead Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.
