Describing Witch Intelligence

[What's in the box?]

I was wondering how other players and DMs are interpreting a witch and her familiar using Intelligence as their operating casting ability.

With Wizard/Magus/Alchemist the idea of studying a book and following a recipe/formulae appears very much like an act of intelligence (vs an act of Wisdom or Charisma- though a charisma based alchemist DEFINITELY sounds like something hilarious and harkens to some WILD alchemy).

How do you describe or intuit the relationship of the witch and her familiar as compared to the wizard and his?

Also- there are archetypes that have witches replacing familiars with poppets and masks. Does this alter the relationship?

[Shiroi]

In a lot of ways I could see the witch being knowledge based as a study closer to that of an alchemist than to a wizard, but unique to her and how she thinks. The wizard studies the raw numbers at the smallest level to change as little as possible and achieve the biggest effect. The Alchemist studies chemistry and maybe boosts the effects of a natural reaction with his own innate magics when it needs a boost to work the way he wants it to. The witch...

Wizard: "I made a fireball by splitting an atom, releasing a lot of energy in a small place."
Alchemist: "I blew a stream of fire out of my mouth by using dragon gall and some slightly magical crystallized oxygen pellets."
Witch: "I set the gnolls on fire."
Wizard&Alchemist: "Yeah, but how?"
Witch: "I just asked my patron to move the fire from my torch into their hair and let nature take over."

Brutal, efficient, merciless, to the point. That's a mindset I can see a stereotypical witch using. The "John McClain from diehard" kind of smart. Direct route and all that.

Of course, every character is different and every mind and personality will give you a different answer to this question, but this is my personal take on the trope.

[My Self]

Think of a Witch as a trickster, like Loki, Anansi, or Rumplestiltskin. Witches are not just smart, they're clever, and have magic to back it up. But also think of them a bit like devils, in that they make deals that only benefit themselves. They're savvy deal-makers- that's practically what their magic is. A contract with their patron (if it's a being) that greatly benefits the witch. They might not be able to innately create magic like the Sorcerer, but they can find something or someone (their patron) that can give them that ability.

As for a witch and their familiar, think of it partway between an employee and an intern, a cleric and their god, and a crazy cat lady and her cats. The familiar is both the assistant and the power source. Without the familiar, the witch could not cast. Without the witch, the familiar is useless.

[Hubaris]

I've always had problems with Witch Intelligence as an idea (I've made custom Wisdom and Charisma archetypes to help wrap my head around Intelligence as an idea), and have since seen it differently because of it.

It would be that the Patron provides the paint but the Witch has to paint the picture. Unlike a Cleric who's Deity grants them the spells, the Patron just gives you the incantations, the words, the tools and such and the memorization and combination of "hubble" "bubble" "toil" and "trouble" is on you.

[What's in the box?]

How would this description work via fluff text in an encounter though.

The party comes to a cottage in the forest and sees a woman talking with her cat.

The idea is to convey the tone of a witch without giving that information.

You could similarly describe a man reading a book in a tower to get across the feel of the Wizard.

But a witch communing with her familiar would be different than a bard talking to a pet cat or a wizard and their familiar. Right?

[Shiroi]

Perhaps, but that'd be much more about the flavor of the person than the class. I personally hate the idea of people being introduced as a "fighter" or "rogue" or "wizard". My old wizard prepared his spells daily by stitching two pieces of vellum together with an arcane sygil inscribed on the outside and the material components pressed between the pages. That was how he studied his spellbook, referencing star charts and local magic fluctuations to determine if he'd need any extra bat guano in his fireball card today (which is why he couldn't prepare them en mass or without his books).

My alchemist is pretty stereotypical, but I have a friend who's run a bard that dressed and acted like a sorcerer (passed himself off as "Preston the Magnificent Mage". It threw people off, intentionally, from what he was.

Every individual is different in their technique. Not all tae quon do practitioners are tall and long legged, not all judo fighters are short and powerfully built. If I can tell exactly who and what you are just from how you dress and smile, why is there a rogue or good aligned divine caster alive in a neutral evil kingdom? Both are trouble the ruling class doesn't need or want. It shouldn't be that simple to see someone's class, and I rarely tell my own party what I'm playing, I certainly never say "roll initiative, there's 3 thugs bearing down on your position, they're fighters with swords and bows".

[Hubaris]

Well communing isn't just talking.
It could be intently watching your cat's movements, mimicking it.
It could be literally there in the middle of a circle with candles around it.
It could be opening a portal in its eyes that lets you see the truth of the universe's fabric.
It could very well just look like someone talking to their pet.

What separates a Witch from an Unlettered Arcanist? A Hexcrafter Magus? I'm of the belief that classes are just a set of kits used to describe your character (so I'm probably a little biased).

@Shiroi: I don't tell my class to my party either. I'm running an Alchemist in 5e who is a combination of a Wizard (Artificer), Rogue (Trickster) and Fighter. All they know is that when he pulls out his scalpal to make incisions, they hurt (Sneak Attack). When he throws his acid, it burns more than most people's (Sharpshooter + Sneak Attack). He brews potions (Artificing), throws Bombs (Fireball) and can spit acid (Acid Arrow).

[Shiroi]

That is brilliant. Several very well done examples of how it could be portrayed, and a really cool build idea I might possibly have to steal. Hats off to you.

I suppose the main point is that you should always breath life into a character and then support it with your rules, or start with a mechanically viable character and fluff it any blasted way you please. Not every witch has boils, a cauldron, a broom, and a cat. Not every character that has all of those things is a witch. Design your character to accomplish your chosen goal(s) and then work from there. If you want to be a stereotypical witch, that's perfectly fine. But you don't have to be, there is no wrong way to do it when asking "which way is witch?". ;-P

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

What's in the box? wrote:

I was wondering how other players and DMs are interpreting a witch and her familiar using Intelligence as their operating casting ability.

With Wizard/Magus/Alchemist the idea of studying a book and following a recipe/formulae appears very much like an act of intelligence (vs an act of Wisdom or Charisma- though a charisma based alchemist DEFINITELY sounds like something hilarious and harkens to some WILD alchemy).

How do you describe or intuit the relationship of the witch and her familiar as compared to the wizard and his?

Also- there are archetypes that have witches replacing familiars with poppets and masks. Does this alter the relationship?

Traditionally, until recently, "Witch" was one of the styles a player would take in roleplaying a witch or sorcerer. Fooling around with a witch's spellbook is one of the most popular ways to get in trouble in classic Grimm-style tales.

Sometimes a witch would be seen as having a spellbook and other times simply belting spells from her innate powers.

So the answer is... it depends on the character.

[Hubaris]

Heck until the Occultist came out, I felt the Witch (Cartomancer) was one of the better ways to do John Constantine (with a splash of Investigator); and he doesn't really catch me as the cackling type.

[Leandro Garvel]

My personal headcanon has always been that a Witch's familiar teaches the Witch mystical secrets and tidbits of lore according to a metaphysical plan their specific Patron has for that Witch.

So a Witch's Intelligence is clever but distinctly strange - their knowledge informed by their patron's philosophy or even whim.

[Deadmanwalking]

Witches are people who have a personal tutor rather than going to school like a Wizard does.

They still need to actually learn and memorize the information in question (ie: how to cast spells), it's only the method of learning and nature of the instructor that varies from a Wizard.

[Gug on the Silver Mountain]

Shiroi wrote:

Witch: "I just asked my patron to move the fire from my torch into their hair and let nature take over."

I've never really thought of this being how a witch casts. It sounds more cleric-y to me. I always thought it was on the witch themselves to do 'heavy lifting' and the patrons merely taught them how, possibly provided a little power initially but not doing it for you. I agress that wizards do seem a little like physicists to me (which I know is only one interpretation).

I tend to think of witches casting in the same way a chef cooks; there's undeniable science there, but it's as much an art in their hands.

[Trailos]

Ive had 2 witch characters,one had a monkey farmiliar and one had a turtle.With the monkey when it came time to prepare spells the farmiliar would go into a trance and begin writing uncontrollably,and I would memorize them like it was a scroll with it turning to ash.The turtle's shell would become translucent when it was time and I would read it as it scrolled by.Both seemed to me like I was getting deep insight into the way the universe works...like meta-physics or the like.So int was perfect for deciphering the secrets long forgotten or not yet found by mortals.

[Rennaivx]

Witch pacts have always felt like a meeting of minds to me - the familiar is essentially a teacher or advisor for the witch, and the witch the student learning from their guidance. Whether they approach that working relationship as equals or as one having some sort of power over the other (and it's either the familiar or the witch that can be dominant), that idea of studying to uncover the world's secrets is there in my head. It's just that, where a wizard is studying books to do it, the witch is getting first-hand advice.

[Tacticslion]

I'd suggest it may be the difference between having a personal trainer/tutor and having a library to peruse.

The witch has the former as a spiritual form; the wizard the latter (but often with mortal masters or other instructors).

[Corvino]

I've often thought of witches as having quite a lot of non-traditional learning or education. They might know the history, folklore and herbalism of their tribe along with a lot of gestures or incantations with ritual significance. The Patron provides the power or spark to turn those from ritual to reality.

As for the familiar, it's a bit more vague. In some cases perhaps the familiar is almost a friend or pet, but it could also be a intelligent and alien presence that shares visions of a troubling power. A witch could be legitimately afraid of their familiar, especially if their Patron was fickle or unknowable.

I have a witch I'd quite like to play but haven't had the opportunity yet:

"A shepherd, he lived in the hills with his flock and his dogs. When he travelled to towns and herding stations he spoke with the old shepherds and wise people of the hills, sharing gossip and old stories. Alone for long periods, he knew which mushrooms were safe to eat, how to birth a lamb how to set a broken bone for a long hobble home. He listened to the wise women and cunning men and learned their words of power, but the spirits never answered when he called.

As he drove his flock toward one village there was a great roar. Rounding the brow of the hill he saw a rockslide where huts once stood. Rushing down he offered what help he could, but his bonesetting and bandaging could do little for the wounded. Desperate and tearful, he mumbled the words of a healing charm over a dying man.

The man died, but he felt a presecence and turned. Sitting alert at his left side was a large, shaggy sheepdog. The same one who drowned in the floods last year. A chill ran through him. It cocked it's head and looked at his hands. He didn't understand how, but he knew the old words would work now.

A dozen or more now live because of the power he gained, crying in the rubble. When he was finished the village headman came to him, and the survivors made a wary circle. They knew his dog, and knew it had died. He saved many but he was not a shepherd any more. The headman gave him a bag of supplies, and a frightened bow, and told him that he could not stay.

The dog followed him as he walked along the track. It's loping stride kept up as he tried to walk away."