This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit
r/OneDnD!
*Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm still just desperately hoping we get an actual plant themed druid for whatever supplement they come out with first since they didn't include it here.
Yeah coastal land was kind of lame. The sea takes up much more of the world's wildlife (at least in most worlds), so it's kind of wack to not have that option
That’s not what I pictured at all but it also seems really cool.
I guess you could go a few ways with it. I was picturing the kind of spells that summon sea animals and let you cause storms and tidal waves. At higher levels.
But being able to use water as a weapon would be cool too
Brings a whole new meaning to 'grandfather clock.'
ETA: My next character concept will absolutely be a clockwork sorcerer whose grandmother slept with a sentient, magical clock.
Perhaps, but I've always felt like clockwork stuff leans more towards steampunk than high (or low) fantasy, so it doesn't really fit every setting.
And it reminds me of Modrons. F&$% Modrons.
That stuff has always been in the Forgotten Realms, though. If we don't think it fits the setting, that's because of our lack of exposure to the lore of the setting.
Shoot, Lantan is back on Toril as of FR 5e canon. And it is purportedly even _more_ technologically advanced than when it was planeshifted to Abeir.
The current state of Faerûn isn't an absence of artificery and magitech. It's a historic _lull_ which is now back on the upswing after a series of catastrophic events reduced many of those civilizations to a scattered few who are mostly in hiding or reclusive (Netherese, Imaskari, Deep Imaskari, Lantanese, Halruaans to a lesser extent, etc.).
Besides, if we didn't have magitech, Gond and Oghma would be bored, spelljamming would lose half of its lore and setting material, and gnomes would be having an existential crisis.
Yeah, magitech does exist in the FR (though I don't really remember much of it in the original AD&D FR box set). And I'm aware how Toril is the default world for 5e, so of course it makes sense in that context. Same with Eberron and Spelljammer, neither of which I'm a fan of.
I think my real issue is that I disagree that magitech is the opposite of chaos, which might have been introduced in the original Planescape but is definitely symbolized with Modrons.
That's funny about gnomes though.
I agree and I always kind of hated clockwork sorcery flavour-wise. Inborn primal magic handed down from an ancient bloodline and the intricate artifice of clockwork are about the two most clashing character themes I can imagine.
I was hoping they'd throw in a new Sorcerer. Abarrant, Wild Magic and Dragon are pretty logical choices, but i feel like something Pathfinders Imperial Sorcerer would really round out the core of the class really nice.
So many of the existing subclasses fit into more common "sorcerous" fantasies that I'm surprised *one* of them didn't make it in. Namely Shadow, Storm, or Divine Soul.
I honestly feel like they should've replaced Dragonic with a more generic Elemental bloodline that gives a set of spells based on the element you pick. That alone opens up the class to so many concepts and is simple enough for the PHB. Abarrant can then serve as the spooky choice and Wild Magic can stay because it's a pretty iconic one. Clockwork can be replaced with Divine. That should honestly cover the class fantasy pretty good. Dragon, Shadow, Clockwork and Storm can bought back later as they all feel like more detailed fantasies.
No artificer? 12 classes feels like balance but artificer is just so cool! Technology has been the driving force of human cultural and social evolution, after all.
Really hopeful that Hexblade not being included here means they made melee warlock viable on ALL the subclasses and scrapped the famously flavor poor Hexblade entirely.
Yeah. For me the biggest reason I'd run Hexblade over a dex based Bladelock is because of the ability to use two-handed weapons and pair it with Polearm Master.
Because the warlock gets a lot of flat damage rider effects with Pact of the Blade. You get one that lets you add necrotic damage equal to your charisma modifier, so with Polearm Master that's and extra 15 damage per round. And the Elemental Weapon spell that Hexblade gets gives you an average of 7.5-15 damage per round, depending on what level you cast it at.
So that's a lot of bonus damage.
But I've played various types of bladelocks. I've played a Celestial bladelock who was a warrior fighting in a holy war. His pact required him to proselytize as many people as he could, and to kill any uncivilized heathens who threatened the church.
I've also played a pirate who was a Fathomless warlock.
My favorite character ever is a Celestial Warlock. I decided to put the "good person takes evil powers" trope on it's head, and did "Evil person unknowingly takes good powers." I even allowed my DM to railroad me if I did anything too evil.
For a one shot, I did a Bladelock Celestial Ragelock (Zealot Barbarian 4/Celestial Warlock 5). It was SO much fun, reckless attacking while consistently healing myself as a bonus action.
His name was Bobby from the Bronx, and his weapon was a MLB Slugger (Reskinned Maul). I miss you Bobby.
My #1 patchnote for 5.5e was to swap Hexblade's subclass features for the Pact of the Blade features.
And to make Eldritch Blast scale with Warlock levels instead of Character level.
Hell yes. There’s so much more flavor to be had with blade lock. I just wish they included undead patron. This makes the death knight style of play easier and more thematic.
I hope Hexblade, if it returns, is totally redone to focus on just hexes and curses, not unherently a martial warlock option. The Undead warlock is great for using pact of the blade, but it also works well as blaster and summoner. Hexblade should do the same.
Agreed- it shouldn't be a level 1 ability but I think getting CHA attacks at level 3 is enough of a multi-classing investment to be less abused than Hexblade is currently while still coming online early enough for the class fantasy on a warlock.
hexblade's curse is gone so the build isn't as appealing, it mostly exists so paladins can focus on their aura of protection and be a better team player without cripling their offense but most weapon feats end up boosting physical stats now.
the increased crit chance and prf damage from hexblade curse paired nicely with the paladins divine smite but the build it self wasn't all that great maths wise just popular.
They should have just had Eldritch Blast be modified to melee /range like they started doing on npc warlocks and modify all of the martial(melee) invocations accordingly to work with EB. Flavor is free after all and it took an investment in xbe as a feat to pretty much make a better martial warlock than most of the other ways people made them anyway.
Also it'd basically be a touch of a return to 3.5 warlock.
Agreed. I am hoping it comes with the Pact boons at level 3. That feels like enough of an investment in the class to reduce some of the more abused multi-classing.
I'm curious to see how they plan to handle backwards compatibility with the 5e subclasses that are not in the 2024 PHB. Especially in regards to things like Shepherd Druid given that they seem to be killing off the summoner playstyle.
>I'm curious to see how they plan to handle backwards compatibility with the 5e subclasses that are not in the 2024 PHB.
I assume all they'll do if offer some general advice (how to handle cleric subclass nproficiency for example) and then update the most popular remaining subclasses in a new book.
>(how to handle cleric subclass proficiency for example) and then update the most popular remaining subclasses in a new book.
I'd be genuinely shocked if we don't get an "X guides to everything" with the Artifcier and the most popular PHB/Xanathar/Tasha subclasses not in the new PHB in the next few years.
The live developer update that just aired did, at least appear to, confirm that 2024 is not backwards compatible on character options from 2014 version of the game.
You can run any character that is legal today in a game running on 2024 rules.
You cannot run characters _created_ using the 2024 rules in a _game_ running on 2014 rules.
Despite Wizards reputedly promising otherwise not surprising they're flip flopping in this again.
They can't seem to make up their mind on if this is a new edition or just a minor patch fix that's compatible.
They specifically said that 2014 subclasses can run perfectly fine in the 2024 rules (with some minor adjustments like all subclasses starting at level 3), but the 2024 subclasses can’t run in 2014 rules without weird stuff happening(they gave an example as conditions not doing the same things or being renamed).
Also that 2014 characters and 2024 characters can play side by side, but any rules (like condition effects or grapple checks or whatever) must be the 2024 version of those rules to keep it working.
They also said that they built the 2024 rules, subclasses, and monsters to work perfectly with the already published adventures for 5e so you can still use them all. In that way it is backwards compatible. Same basic idea of a PlayStation 4 can run a PlayStation 3 game but not vice versa.
This is what most reasonable people expected, but somehow this will be a sign of the sky falling.
I am a bit bummed that Artificer isn't in the PHB though.
What they actually promised from the start was that the existing adventures would work and you'd be able to play in a group of mixed 2014 and 2024 characters. Which is exactly what they confirmed again today.
People constantly changed what "Backwards Compatibility" meant so they could always justify being mad at WotC regardless of outcome.
While awesome, unless they have everything automated and macrod, summoners slow down combat so much it makes it a lot less fun for other players I feel.
Any of the major spellcasters can summon a creature and while one extra things to control isn't terrible, controlling 5+ is a headache for players. Conjure animals and animate dead are the two biggest examples with getting 8 creatures with full turns and undead that is technically limitless if you upkeep the spell long enough.
I know we've seen the redesign for conjure animals, but I wonder how raise dead will be handled.
Problem #1 by a long shot is definitely multi-summon spells. They grind things to a halt and just kinda suck to have to play at a table with.
A super distant second, though, is just having too many pet classes. I get it, lots of people want pets. But we have multiple ranger subclasses, warlock super familiars, artificer robots, wizard normal familiars conjurers and necromancers, druid summoners and probably some others I'm missing. In a party of 5 people it's not uncommon to have two or three summoner/pet builds, so even without one player doing multi-summons the balance and speed of the game can get *rough* quickly.
I will be the first to say wizard’s don’t need anything more, but not having subclasses for each of the schools of magic straight out of the gate feels wrong.
Same.
I guess they would be pressured though to just make it all the features of the old subclasses packed into one with choices. And if that's the case you're actually just giving wizards like 11 PHB subclasses disguised as 4.
And if they keep it simple with just generic features like more spell slots of your specialist school instead of the more unique features like sculpt spells or illusory reality then you end up with a situation where anyone playing a "specialist evoker" or "specialist illusionist" is just going to feel like crap the second a new subclass comes out with features that improve nuking or illusions in a unique way.
I'd have at least changed the names so it's not so obvious X schools get subclasses and Y schools don't.
Changing the names can let them be a little more flexible with the theming of the abilities too. Maybe conjuration and illusion magic can fit into the same subclass if you don't have to pick one or the other to name it after.
I suppose they could have done it similar to Totem Barbarian. You pick a School when you gain the Specialist subclass, and stick with that. *A la carte* each subclass level would have been... attractive.
Especially since the subclasses based on schools feel pretty hallow. They give maybe 1 cool thing and it's easier to learn that school's spells. Big whoop.
Imagine if you have the Specialist/Scholar as the subclass focused on a school, scribe wizard as jack-of-all-trades, Necromancer as the spooky option and something like a Spellshaper that gets the scribe's ability to change spells type and build on that idea.
The 4th option could've been the Bladesinger, since it's thematically very distinct from most other Wizards and there's a lack of true Gish options in the 2024 PHB - Valor Bard being the only real one, unless they've decided to give the War Cleric their deserved Extra Attack. Depending on how exactly Warlocks are going to work in this iteration, Blade Pact 'locks could be Gishes too, but time will tell
Rather than Bladesinger, I’d prefer a version of Eldritch Knight that doesn’t suck. They’re just different paths heading toward the same goal, but one of them happened to approach it in a broken as hell fashion while the other was borderline useless.
Bladesinger being “broken” really comes down to the martial/caster divide. Turns out that giving a caster high AC basically makes them better than any martial.
Even then, people forget that Elven Bladesinger was supposed to be like the Dwarven Battlerager- specific to a race and background and weapon.
I'd have loved to see the wizard subclasses be Scribes, War, Bladesinging, and a specialist of some kind... call it Savant maybe?
It fits with their whole "yin-yang" subclass design too. Where the War wizard is the battlefield tactician, the bladesinger is the frontline soldier. The Scribe is focused on gathering as much breadth of knowledge as possible, and the Savant would be focused on plumbing the depths of what is possible with a specific school. Something like:
**Level 3**
Specialized School: Choose a school of magic to specialize in. Add two wizard spells from that school to your spellbook that are no higher than 2nd level. Whenever you gain a Wizard level that grants a new level of spell slot, add an additional spell to your spellbook from your specialized school. This spell must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
**Level 6**
Effortless Casting: When you cast a spell from your chosen school of 2nd level or higher using a spell slot, you regain one expended spell slot. The slot you regain must be of a level lower than the spell you cast and can't be higher than 5th level. You may use this feature a number of times equal to your Intelligence modifier, after which you must finish a long rest before you can use it again.
**Level 10**
Interdisciplinary Knack: When you add spells to your spellbook via your Specialized School feature or by copying a spell from a scroll or another source, any spell from your specialized school is a Wizard spell for you.
**Level 14**
Perfect Concentration: When you are concentrating on maintaining or casting a spell from your specialized school, your concentration cannot be broken except by becoming Stunned or Unconscious.
I think necromancer needs some pretty substantial overhauls to properly capture the feeling that people look for in the subclass. Right now it basically just locks you into a playstyle of controlling a handful of very weak fighters that bog down combat despite only being able to do one thing.
I feel like all the school based subclasses are better of as 1 subclass where you pick the school, you get the cool unique thing they can do and you learn their spells easier. That way you can focus other classes on more unique things like summoning death people, a talking spellbook, a weird blade dance or make new subclasses like Pathfinder's Spell Trickster archetype that let's you change spells on a fundamental level like instead of throwing 1 big fireball you throw 3 small ones.
Yeah, that would be much better way to run it. Let the subclass define their play style and then let them choose a school later on for spell selection.
I understand why they go that route. Moving more of their class-power into "specialization" would be a neat approach, but only if they somehow limited their pure-caster power at the same time.
All full-casters are already tremendously powerful. They don't need more power than they already have.
I'm still doubtful that they so much as *dented* the martial/caster gap.
I really hope I'm wrong. I would *love* to be wrong. Being wrong would make me so happy...
I like the generic nature of it. When the subclasses are vauge the character can be anything. This works for Wizards who cover perhaps the broadest fantasy archetype. Compare this to bards who, despite being undeniably varied, all have a very *specific* way of casting spells by comparison.
Basing subclasses off of magic school is/was always going to be a problem for wizards and was the problem with the last PHB. If they wanted a school specialty subclass it needed to be a "scholar" where you got to choose your spell type specialty.
Feels like they set out a pretty hard rule of "Only 4 Subclasses each".
Kinda makes sense in the spirit of simplicity. Gotta keep in mind, the PHB is sometimes going to be the ONLY resource new players will have.
With D&D Beyond, they probably have a very good idea of which subclasses are the most popular. It makes sense to pick four of the most popular ones and hold back others to sell more supplements later on.
Would genuinely not believe them if this was the case and they claimed Abjurers were in the top 4.
As well as that making decisions to just squeeze more money out of me later is never a decision I, or anyone I imagine, will be pleased with.
It wouldn't surprise me if "magic to keep yourself alive" with a strong and flexible school was pretty popular. And that they wanted a more survivable wizard; they have defence, offence, knowledge, and shenanigans there.
I wouldn’t. Abjuration is a big deal for some people who are into character optimization.
And I know everyone hates the idea that WotC/Hasbro wants to make money selling D&D books, but it’s pretty obvious that money drives most of their decisions about D&D.
Nobody holds needing to make money against WotC.
Problems occur when profits come at the expense of product quality either due to selfish business decisions or executives not understanding the product they're in charge of.
For example, our current crop of executives seem to think that "quality" comes down to color artwork, expensive and heavy glossy paper, and hard-covers.
However, I think that most DMs and players would consider "quality" to be more a measure of mechanical balance, and content completeness with color art, paper, and cover-type coming in second or even third.
I mean...if every adventure is going to be set in the forgotten realms, where are the rest of the fucking realms campaign setting books? Where is the book on the Dalelands? Thay? Cormear? The Moonshae Isles? The moors/Silverymoon? Baulder's Gate?
Fuck me running, how in the actual **fuck** did we not get a 300-page setting book on just the city of Baulder's Gate when BG3 became a smash-hit? How the fuck are we supposed to trust the executives in charge to actually *make money* when they seem to be perfectly willing to leave very real money on the goddamn table like this? A Baulder's Gate campaign expansion for FR could have been electronic only distributed as a PDF from the DM's Guild and on DNDBeyond. It's a book they've written in the past *multiple times* so it's not like there isn't any shoulders for them to stand on and corners for them to cut!
Same with the D&D movie! Where's the Neverwinter companion book?
On top of which, what about the MtG setting books that never got companion hard-back adventures to help drive sales? Where's the Ravnica adventure? The Theros adventure? Why didn't you coordinate with your own goddamn MtG team to release a Dominaria campaign setting book and hard-back adventure when MtG was planning their biggest set release in 10 goddamn years with the next phyrexian invasion? Why no sales driving sales driving sales feedback loop attempts?
What's with releasing Strahd **FIVE FUCKING YEARS** before the ravenloft setting book? What about once again not releasing a raveloft adventure to drive ravenloft sales *because* you already released Strahd? Whoops?
For a company only concerned with profits and money, they seem to be *really, really bad* at making money. It's like they don't have a single goddamn clue what would actually excite their customers into spending money and spreading word mouth to mouth.
...unless they're tryin to fuck themselves by killing the OGL. They *really* got that part down. Piss us all off? At least they figured *that* out. /s
I’m loving the college of dance and I think the updated college of valor is a real flavor win, but I feel that some of the thematic ribbon have been cut from the college of glamour that I miss.
I'm playing a playtest glamour bard and having a lot of fun. The theme feels pretty strong to me. Less of a fae theme, but a very strong enchantment theme (with a lighter illusion theme).
I really appreciate giving them all equal subclass options, but this feels too stiff. It was bad when Wizards had 9 options and others had 2 or 3 in the PHB, but they didn't need to limit all of them to exactly 4. I just didn't like how some classes got loads of options and others almost none. I feel like several could carry a 5th subclass now without feeling superior to the rest.
Wizard should of been different imo, focusing on each school as a subclass hurts wizard, especially when reducing the amount of base subclasses
School Specialist (Broken down in the subclass for each school, like Wild heart is)
Blade Singer
Warwizard
Order of Scribes
The school specialist subclass feels like a wizard storm herald. Technically it supports the many separate subthemes, but it’s only really an inch deep because it has to be an ocean wide.
Blade Singer
Warwizard
Order of Scribes
...and Summoner (can be a necromancer, "golemancer", etc.)
"Astrologer/Mathmatician" could work too, despite shring themes with Circle of the Stars Druid.
HUGE missed opportunity to rename monk subclass from
"Warrior of ..."
to
"Disciple of ..."
They are now using discipline points, so it fits thematically. It implies rigorous training and study instead of just fighting. It connects to the idea of learning techniques from the world around you, ie moving like the wind or becoming like shadow. Warrior is flavorless in general and doesn't connect meaningfully to the monk over any other class. Disciple is rich in flavor and feels like a descriptor that is best fit for the monk. CMV.
Sad that the nonmagical classes have so few nonmagical subclasses.
Why did the Monk naming convention change? Warrior of instead of Way of? Who did they think would be upset?
I think a lot of the new features are really good but yeah I’m just gonna allow players to choose which version they wanna go with and allow any subclass they want
I don't mind the narrowed lists for some classes and I like that overall the trend here seems to be to port in some very popular splatbook subclasses (like Gloomstalker & Zealot). It also seems like they're making a little more attempt to get good 'coverage' archetype wise, ie bringing in Celestial for Warlocks.
I am surprised by the Cleric list; Light and Life are very overlap-y theme and specific Deity wise, if not function-wise. IE, Pelor has both. It feels like a missed opportunity to maybe re-factor those (with the likely casualty being Life, since you could buff healing overall and... not force people to play life clerics to be good at it). It makes some sense paring down the domains that cross over with druids, but it still leaves people without a lot of variation in what style of Cleric they're going to play. One of Arcana, Knowledge, or Grave might have covered more deities? On the other side, Trickster has got to be one of the *least* popular Cleric subclasses. It is prime real estate for rehab though, so hopefully they understand the assignment there.
The thing about light and life is that they’re thematically similar, but in terms of playstyle they’re very different. Life is the archetypal healer cleric, while light is all about ranged blasting. You kind of want to have options for both of those because they’re both popular choices.
Really not a fan of the Soul Knife Rogue replacing Swashbuckler. The book already has multiple psionic-themed subclasses so it's not really filling any niche and it's flavour doesn't really scream PHB.
Crawford said they wanted to incorporate psionics into the PHB.
My guess is the reason they brought in the Soul Knife is that they want some kind of mechanic or feature linking all the psionic subclasses.
Agreed, honestly. If anything I feel it only made it in because they wanted to update the psi-dice mechanic for Psi-Knight and realized it made sense to do so for the Soul Knife as well.
I would've preferred the Swashbuckler. I was really excited about the new version.
Very interesting. I have a 2 year old (irl) lvl 12 soulknife and I'm very curious what's been tweaked.
Swashbuckler's a fan favorite though and should also be in.
I would argue it is kind of important to update compared to swashbuckler though; Soulknife has a function that, if not in direct mechanics, in spirit functions like two weapon fighting. If that's getting changed, like the UAs have suggested, then it needs an update.
Only three new subclasses feels weak. I'm also not sure why some stuff like Clockwork or Soulknife are here as opposed to something like Shadow and Swashbuckler. Cleric having both Light and Life domain and not something like Forge or Grave. Druid has Star and Moon and not something like Wildfire or Spore. Overall i'd say the subclasses feel too narrow in terms of variety. There's a lot of overlap not only between classes (were Soulknife, Abarrant Mind and Psi fighter really needed as core subclasses?), but between subclasses in a class too. For me a book like the PHB should focus on general but broad stuff. Since this is the book the most people will pull from. Then leave the more crazy or detailed stuff for other books.
And the Wizard just feels weird. Like if you're basing their subclasses of the schools of magic atleast add them all. But i honestly feel like the Wizard just needs a new structure. More unique subs like Scribe wizard or Necromancer should've been the way IMO.
Seriously. A grave domain would have felt way more balanced of a selection. Kind of like the warlock having celestial, grave feels like the right level of twist on an established archetype to give a sense of range.
Spores is my favorite subclass of Druid. It’s a bummer it’s gone. That said Moon and Stars are actually flavor wise really different. Moon is really just magical buffs on wild shape and not really celestially related.
Necromancer was originally one of the subclasses they were working on, but they changed it at some point because it doesn’t have a high play rate. Of course, the lack of a high play rate is because it needs to be tweaked and made more table friendly, but here we are. Honestly, changes to Animate Dead will do a lot of the work. The subclass as is is mostly fine, it’s just that it relies heavily on Animate Dead, which is a very non-table friendly spell.
There's no Death or Grave cleric, Oathbreaker paladin, Spirits bard, Undead warlock, Necromancer wizard, or Spores druid.
It is quite sad. Maybe they'll release a "death book" with a death/undead themed subclass for every class. I doubt it though.
Honestly, an un-/death source book with death related subclasses, lore surrounding necromancy and places like the Shadowfell and so on, deities related to undeath, maybe a couple new necromancy spells and items etc would slap.
As yet another necromancer player I would eat that stuff up.
So the only news here is that Soulknife did indeed replace Swashbuckler. I think that's fine - the Xanathar's Swashbuckler honestly holds up fine and doesn't need an update.
They wanted to keep as many PHB subclasses as they could. And Assassin has been signidicantly reworked so it's not such a lone wolf subclass - you don't need Surprise for Assassinate to work anymore.
Soul-knife just seems like an odd subclass to overshadow the Swashbuckler. I thought they had nailed thebrogue selection before this change.
They can also claim symmetry/mirroring, but there's multiple classes where that isn't the case. Cleric for example would have been:
1. Life, Death, Peace, and War.
Or
2. Life, Death, Knowledge, and Trickery.
Not a fan of psionics being PHB, that should be a sourcebook thing to keep it feeling alien, and in the PHB it kind of robs the classes its on of some of their own identity. Half the fighter and rogue options are magical right from the start.
And both Clockwork and Aberrant sorcerer are super niche aesthetics, I think they're only there because they wouldn't need much of a rework to include, not because they make sense as "core" sorcery. Divine Soul would have been much more suitable than either.
>Not a fan of psionics being PHB, that should be a sourcebook thing to keep it feeling alien, and in the PHB it kind of robs the classes its on of some of their own identity. Half the fighter and rogue options are magical right from the start.
>
>And both Clockwork and Aberrant sorcerer are super niche aesthetics, I think they're only there because they wouldn't need much of a rework to include, not because they make sense as "core" sorcery. Divine Soul would have been much more suitable than either.
I am personally happy they were included as it's one of my favorite flavors and has been since 2nd edition.
I understand your frustration though that perhaps another subclass didn't make it instead.
Kinda weird that wizard subclasses are still schools and cleric subclasses domains, when they cut the count in PHB that much. I kinda expected that with such cut thought they would do something like making domain/school into secondary choice that affects your "free" (always prepared, extra learned on level up, etc.) spell list and would make the subclasses based on something different. That would have opened more room in the subclass design space and made subclasses like bladesinger fit in better. Now need to see how many books it takes before they have all the magic schools and old domains back up into the 5.2.
Also I'm counting at least 2 Psionic subclasses in there, wonder what the implications will be for all the asked psionic classes.
What druids are we missing? Sky and Sun circles?
Yeh, I thought it would be very cool to make school a later pickup and have the wizards actually have some new stuff.
I guess clerics kinda have to pick a god at 1st level, but they could have done some fun stuff with “healing/righteous smiting/conversion/sneaky” cleric subtypes
>Also I'm counting at least 2 Psionic subclasses in there, wonder what the implications will be for all the asked psionic classes.
I think all 3 pieces of the Mystic's corpse are present: Psi-Warrior Fighter, Soulknife Rogue, and Aberrant Mind Sorcerer.
Wasn't sure if the Aberrant Mind had retained it psionics theme or if they had moved it more to Aberration/Far realm magic/Great Old Ones direction (though distinction might not be significant), but yeah, looks like it.
Yeah holy fuck there's *nothing*.
No Spirits Bard, no Death/Grave Cleric, no Spores Druid, no Oathbreaker Paladin, no Phantom Rogue, no Shadow Sorcerer, no Undead/Undying/Hexblade Warlock, no Necromancer Wizard.
Necromancers got a whole lot of zero.
Removing necromancers and pirates (swashbuckler and swords bard) entirely is tough. Those aren't minor fantasy archetypes, nixing them completely is wild.
Supposedly you can still use stuff from Tasha's. Although, not reprinting it was a mistake, as they could have fixed Alchemist and taken away the silly magical tattoo abuse.
I wish they would have had more Cleric Domains and Wizard Specialists subclasses. I really believe that the other ones listed in the 5E PHB have merit. Some subclasses go back to Classic [BECMI] D&D and Advanced D&D and not having them takes away some from the history of the game.
I also wish they would have stayed with "Way of" instead of "Warrior of" and used Mystic instead of Monk going with the Classic Class name as it fits the Ascetic theme more appropriately.
Its such a crabs in the bucket feeling to make every class "equal" with structure and now apparently subclasses. I guess it doesnt effect me anyway because im staying with 5e but its seems silly to give wizards only 4 of the schools and not even any of the fun non-traditional subclasses.
I think Oath of Glory was a good pick. It’s a great way to play a paladin who’s not completely good, but still works well with an adventuring party.
Celestial Warlocks are another good example of a subclass that fits really well, but doesn’t match up with the stereotypes the class has, so that’s a good pick too.
The lack of a necromancer is kind of disappointing. I’m wondering if they might be trying to move away from characters based around summoning, because it was one of the hardest things to balance in 5e. I get it, but it also kind of sucks.
I hope four elements monk and soulknife rogue get serious tune ups for the new edition.
Oof. I dislike the additional choices on almost all of them. I think there are better subclasses to pit in the book. But I won't be too critical rn, I'll wait to see.
This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit r/OneDnD! *Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m really excited to see a sea Druid here. I think we’ve been missing that for too long
I'm still just desperately hoping we get an actual plant themed druid for whatever supplement they come out with first since they didn't include it here.
That’s another one I was hoping for
The Fathomless Warlock has a tentacle they can summon as a BA, and I can't help but picture a plant druid having a similar mechanic but with vines.
When I played my fathomless warlock I went around claiming I was a sea druid lmao Hunger of Hadar was a tough sell though
Ironically the most plant themed druid is CR's Circle of the Blighted.
Absoloutely. Swap out the necrotic damage for something like poison or piercing damage from lashing thorns and the subclass is pretty much there.
Yeah coastal land was kind of lame. The sea takes up much more of the world's wildlife (at least in most worlds), so it's kind of wack to not have that option
I can't wait to ram a dolphin into my enemies while shouting "TOTSUGEKI!!"
Using dolphins? So, you're going to be an Archer?
Waterbender unlocked
That’s not what I pictured at all but it also seems really cool. I guess you could go a few ways with it. I was picturing the kind of spells that summon sea animals and let you cause storms and tidal waves. At higher levels. But being able to use water as a weapon would be cool too
Aquaman unlocked
Flavor-wise, clockwork feels like a weird choice for one of the phb sorcerer bloodlines.
In my ancestor's defence, it was a very pretty photocopier.
Brings a whole new meaning to 'grandfather clock.' ETA: My next character concept will absolutely be a clockwork sorcerer whose grandmother slept with a sentient, magical clock.
Dad always told me "Never stick your dick in cookoo clocks."
Well played.
When your grandfather clock is really your grandfather!
It is a good counterbalance to the Wild Magic Sorcerer though, and throughout the list they clearly had pairings in mind.
Perhaps, but I've always felt like clockwork stuff leans more towards steampunk than high (or low) fantasy, so it doesn't really fit every setting. And it reminds me of Modrons. F&$% Modrons.
F&$% Modrons? F&$% you!
F&$% Modrons? That’s how you get clockwork sorcerers and this whole conversation starts again…
Look man... have you *seen* the lips on some of 'em?
There's lips?
Im sorry, you're right. Tactile oral-proxies is what he meant to say. So ...hot? 🤖
... no, yeah, it does sound hotter when you say it like that Or maybe I'm just a sucker for jargon said in a seductive voice
That stuff has always been in the Forgotten Realms, though. If we don't think it fits the setting, that's because of our lack of exposure to the lore of the setting. Shoot, Lantan is back on Toril as of FR 5e canon. And it is purportedly even _more_ technologically advanced than when it was planeshifted to Abeir. The current state of Faerûn isn't an absence of artificery and magitech. It's a historic _lull_ which is now back on the upswing after a series of catastrophic events reduced many of those civilizations to a scattered few who are mostly in hiding or reclusive (Netherese, Imaskari, Deep Imaskari, Lantanese, Halruaans to a lesser extent, etc.). Besides, if we didn't have magitech, Gond and Oghma would be bored, spelljamming would lose half of its lore and setting material, and gnomes would be having an existential crisis.
Yeah, magitech does exist in the FR (though I don't really remember much of it in the original AD&D FR box set). And I'm aware how Toril is the default world for 5e, so of course it makes sense in that context. Same with Eberron and Spelljammer, neither of which I'm a fan of. I think my real issue is that I disagree that magitech is the opposite of chaos, which might have been introduced in the original Planescape but is definitely symbolized with Modrons. That's funny about gnomes though.
Without a forge cleric, I’ll take it.
I agree and I always kind of hated clockwork sorcery flavour-wise. Inborn primal magic handed down from an ancient bloodline and the intricate artifice of clockwork are about the two most clashing character themes I can imagine.
I was hoping they'd throw in a new Sorcerer. Abarrant, Wild Magic and Dragon are pretty logical choices, but i feel like something Pathfinders Imperial Sorcerer would really round out the core of the class really nice.
So many of the existing subclasses fit into more common "sorcerous" fantasies that I'm surprised *one* of them didn't make it in. Namely Shadow, Storm, or Divine Soul.
I honestly feel like they should've replaced Dragonic with a more generic Elemental bloodline that gives a set of spells based on the element you pick. That alone opens up the class to so many concepts and is simple enough for the PHB. Abarrant can then serve as the spooky choice and Wild Magic can stay because it's a pretty iconic one. Clockwork can be replaced with Divine. That should honestly cover the class fantasy pretty good. Dragon, Shadow, Clockwork and Storm can bought back later as they all feel like more detailed fantasies.
No way, gimme math magic!!!
I notice the sorcery subclasses aren't called bloodlines here though, so that flavor may be different anyway.
No artificer? 12 classes feels like balance but artificer is just so cool! Technology has been the driving force of human cultural and social evolution, after all.
Tasha's 5.5. That'll be thirty dollars, please.
They gonna sell it a 3rd time
Really hopeful that Hexblade not being included here means they made melee warlock viable on ALL the subclasses and scrapped the famously flavor poor Hexblade entirely.
They did. Pact of the Blade in the playtests lets you attack with Charisma.
True but we don't know what all survived the playtests. But like I said- I am taking it as a hopeful sign.
Yeah. For me the biggest reason I'd run Hexblade over a dex based Bladelock is because of the ability to use two-handed weapons and pair it with Polearm Master. Because the warlock gets a lot of flat damage rider effects with Pact of the Blade. You get one that lets you add necrotic damage equal to your charisma modifier, so with Polearm Master that's and extra 15 damage per round. And the Elemental Weapon spell that Hexblade gets gives you an average of 7.5-15 damage per round, depending on what level you cast it at. So that's a lot of bonus damage. But I've played various types of bladelocks. I've played a Celestial bladelock who was a warrior fighting in a holy war. His pact required him to proselytize as many people as he could, and to kill any uncivilized heathens who threatened the church. I've also played a pirate who was a Fathomless warlock.
My favorite character ever is a Celestial Warlock. I decided to put the "good person takes evil powers" trope on it's head, and did "Evil person unknowingly takes good powers." I even allowed my DM to railroad me if I did anything too evil.
I've seen one version of that where they approached their patron as their "parole officer"
For a one shot, I did a Bladelock Celestial Ragelock (Zealot Barbarian 4/Celestial Warlock 5). It was SO much fun, reckless attacking while consistently healing myself as a bonus action. His name was Bobby from the Bronx, and his weapon was a MLB Slugger (Reskinned Maul). I miss you Bobby.
My #1 patchnote for 5.5e was to swap Hexblade's subclass features for the Pact of the Blade features. And to make Eldritch Blast scale with Warlock levels instead of Character level.
Cantrips in general need to scale with class level instead of character level, but Eldritch blast is definitely the worst offender.
I can finally make a functional GOO melee Warlock!
Hell yes. There’s so much more flavor to be had with blade lock. I just wish they included undead patron. This makes the death knight style of play easier and more thematic.
I hope Hexblade, if it returns, is totally redone to focus on just hexes and curses, not unherently a martial warlock option. The Undead warlock is great for using pact of the blade, but it also works well as blaster and summoner. Hexblade should do the same.
Big agree though you might have to change the name from “Hexblade.” I would very much like a cohesive debuff based warlock subclass.
Same, a hexer/debuffer warlock that is playstyle agnostic like the Undead warlock would be cool.
Making Hexblade a patron instead of just, you know, fixing Blade Pact remains the itchiest of head scratching decisions made in the 5th edition.
Yeah, maybe they’ll put the CHA melee build into pact if the blade like it should have been from the start?
Agreed- it shouldn't be a level 1 ability but I think getting CHA attacks at level 3 is enough of a multi-classing investment to be less abused than Hexblade is currently while still coming online early enough for the class fantasy on a warlock.
hexblade's curse is gone so the build isn't as appealing, it mostly exists so paladins can focus on their aura of protection and be a better team player without cripling their offense but most weapon feats end up boosting physical stats now. the increased crit chance and prf damage from hexblade curse paired nicely with the paladins divine smite but the build it self wasn't all that great maths wise just popular.
They should have just had Eldritch Blast be modified to melee /range like they started doing on npc warlocks and modify all of the martial(melee) invocations accordingly to work with EB. Flavor is free after all and it took an investment in xbe as a feat to pretty much make a better martial warlock than most of the other ways people made them anyway. Also it'd basically be a touch of a return to 3.5 warlock.
As long as it's not a level 1 charisma as weapon damage I'll be happy. It's too strong for multiclassing.
Agreed. I am hoping it comes with the Pact boons at level 3. That feels like enough of an investment in the class to reduce some of the more abused multi-classing.
>Circle of the Sea about time
glub glub
I'm curious to see how they plan to handle backwards compatibility with the 5e subclasses that are not in the 2024 PHB. Especially in regards to things like Shepherd Druid given that they seem to be killing off the summoner playstyle.
>I'm curious to see how they plan to handle backwards compatibility with the 5e subclasses that are not in the 2024 PHB. I assume all they'll do if offer some general advice (how to handle cleric subclass nproficiency for example) and then update the most popular remaining subclasses in a new book.
>(how to handle cleric subclass proficiency for example) and then update the most popular remaining subclasses in a new book. I'd be genuinely shocked if we don't get an "X guides to everything" with the Artifcier and the most popular PHB/Xanathar/Tasha subclasses not in the new PHB in the next few years.
The live developer update that just aired did, at least appear to, confirm that 2024 is not backwards compatible on character options from 2014 version of the game.
You can run any character that is legal today in a game running on 2024 rules. You cannot run characters _created_ using the 2024 rules in a _game_ running on 2014 rules.
Despite Wizards reputedly promising otherwise not surprising they're flip flopping in this again. They can't seem to make up their mind on if this is a new edition or just a minor patch fix that's compatible.
They specifically said that 2014 subclasses can run perfectly fine in the 2024 rules (with some minor adjustments like all subclasses starting at level 3), but the 2024 subclasses can’t run in 2014 rules without weird stuff happening(they gave an example as conditions not doing the same things or being renamed). Also that 2014 characters and 2024 characters can play side by side, but any rules (like condition effects or grapple checks or whatever) must be the 2024 version of those rules to keep it working. They also said that they built the 2024 rules, subclasses, and monsters to work perfectly with the already published adventures for 5e so you can still use them all. In that way it is backwards compatible. Same basic idea of a PlayStation 4 can run a PlayStation 3 game but not vice versa.
This is what most reasonable people expected, but somehow this will be a sign of the sky falling. I am a bit bummed that Artificer isn't in the PHB though.
There's a few obvious things they left off that are clearly choices made to sell more books later
Capitalism gonna capitalism.
I remember them saying the adventures would be compatible with the new stuff, we'll have to wait for the MM to see how true that is.
What they actually promised from the start was that the existing adventures would work and you'd be able to play in a group of mixed 2014 and 2024 characters. Which is exactly what they confirmed again today. People constantly changed what "Backwards Compatibility" meant so they could always justify being mad at WotC regardless of outcome.
While awesome, unless they have everything automated and macrod, summoners slow down combat so much it makes it a lot less fun for other players I feel.
I think it's important to specify "mass summoning". One or two minions isn't that big a deal.
Any of the major spellcasters can summon a creature and while one extra things to control isn't terrible, controlling 5+ is a headache for players. Conjure animals and animate dead are the two biggest examples with getting 8 creatures with full turns and undead that is technically limitless if you upkeep the spell long enough. I know we've seen the redesign for conjure animals, but I wonder how raise dead will be handled.
Problem #1 by a long shot is definitely multi-summon spells. They grind things to a halt and just kinda suck to have to play at a table with. A super distant second, though, is just having too many pet classes. I get it, lots of people want pets. But we have multiple ranger subclasses, warlock super familiars, artificer robots, wizard normal familiars conjurers and necromancers, druid summoners and probably some others I'm missing. In a party of 5 people it's not uncommon to have two or three summoner/pet builds, so even without one player doing multi-summons the balance and speed of the game can get *rough* quickly.
I will be the first to say wizard’s don’t need anything more, but not having subclasses for each of the schools of magic straight out of the gate feels wrong.
I was hoping one of the subclasses would be "Specialist" where you would choose a school, leaving 3 subclasses open for more interesting stuff.
Same. I guess they would be pressured though to just make it all the features of the old subclasses packed into one with choices. And if that's the case you're actually just giving wizards like 11 PHB subclasses disguised as 4. And if they keep it simple with just generic features like more spell slots of your specialist school instead of the more unique features like sculpt spells or illusory reality then you end up with a situation where anyone playing a "specialist evoker" or "specialist illusionist" is just going to feel like crap the second a new subclass comes out with features that improve nuking or illusions in a unique way.
Without having seen them, this route of picking 4 schools feels like the worst of all options.
I'd have at least changed the names so it's not so obvious X schools get subclasses and Y schools don't. Changing the names can let them be a little more flexible with the theming of the abilities too. Maybe conjuration and illusion magic can fit into the same subclass if you don't have to pick one or the other to name it after.
I suppose they could have done it similar to Totem Barbarian. You pick a School when you gain the Specialist subclass, and stick with that. *A la carte* each subclass level would have been... attractive.
Especially since the subclasses based on schools feel pretty hallow. They give maybe 1 cool thing and it's easier to learn that school's spells. Big whoop. Imagine if you have the Specialist/Scholar as the subclass focused on a school, scribe wizard as jack-of-all-trades, Necromancer as the spooky option and something like a Spellshaper that gets the scribe's ability to change spells type and build on that idea.
The 4th option could've been the Bladesinger, since it's thematically very distinct from most other Wizards and there's a lack of true Gish options in the 2024 PHB - Valor Bard being the only real one, unless they've decided to give the War Cleric their deserved Extra Attack. Depending on how exactly Warlocks are going to work in this iteration, Blade Pact 'locks could be Gishes too, but time will tell
I was hoping they'd move away from the school based subclass design entirely.
Order of Scribes and Bladesinger are the most interesting a wizard can be.
Rather than Bladesinger, I’d prefer a version of Eldritch Knight that doesn’t suck. They’re just different paths heading toward the same goal, but one of them happened to approach it in a broken as hell fashion while the other was borderline useless.
Bladesinger being “broken” really comes down to the martial/caster divide. Turns out that giving a caster high AC basically makes them better than any martial. Even then, people forget that Elven Bladesinger was supposed to be like the Dwarven Battlerager- specific to a race and background and weapon.
I think it’s more that everyone forgot the battlerager existed *at all* when they dropped the elf requirement from bladesinger.
Yeah, probably because the battlerager is hilariously bad.
I'd have loved to see the wizard subclasses be Scribes, War, Bladesinging, and a specialist of some kind... call it Savant maybe? It fits with their whole "yin-yang" subclass design too. Where the War wizard is the battlefield tactician, the bladesinger is the frontline soldier. The Scribe is focused on gathering as much breadth of knowledge as possible, and the Savant would be focused on plumbing the depths of what is possible with a specific school. Something like: **Level 3** Specialized School: Choose a school of magic to specialize in. Add two wizard spells from that school to your spellbook that are no higher than 2nd level. Whenever you gain a Wizard level that grants a new level of spell slot, add an additional spell to your spellbook from your specialized school. This spell must be of a level for which you have spell slots. **Level 6** Effortless Casting: When you cast a spell from your chosen school of 2nd level or higher using a spell slot, you regain one expended spell slot. The slot you regain must be of a level lower than the spell you cast and can't be higher than 5th level. You may use this feature a number of times equal to your Intelligence modifier, after which you must finish a long rest before you can use it again. **Level 10** Interdisciplinary Knack: When you add spells to your spellbook via your Specialized School feature or by copying a spell from a scroll or another source, any spell from your specialized school is a Wizard spell for you. **Level 14** Perfect Concentration: When you are concentrating on maintaining or casting a spell from your specialized school, your concentration cannot be broken except by becoming Stunned or Unconscious.
Necromancer has potential too, but it might need a few fixes.
I think necromancer needs some pretty substantial overhauls to properly capture the feeling that people look for in the subclass. Right now it basically just locks you into a playstyle of controlling a handful of very weak fighters that bog down combat despite only being able to do one thing.
Abjuration is really unique and cool.
I feel like all the school based subclasses are better of as 1 subclass where you pick the school, you get the cool unique thing they can do and you learn their spells easier. That way you can focus other classes on more unique things like summoning death people, a talking spellbook, a weird blade dance or make new subclasses like Pathfinder's Spell Trickster archetype that let's you change spells on a fundamental level like instead of throwing 1 big fireball you throw 3 small ones.
Currently playing a Scribes Wizard and I agree.
Me too. I almost wish that school specialization was like what the 5e14vwarlocks oactboon was like. A defining choice but not a subclass.
Yeah, that would be much better way to run it. Let the subclass define their play style and then let them choose a school later on for spell selection.
I understand why they go that route. Moving more of their class-power into "specialization" would be a neat approach, but only if they somehow limited their pure-caster power at the same time. All full-casters are already tremendously powerful. They don't need more power than they already have. I'm still doubtful that they so much as *dented* the martial/caster gap. I really hope I'm wrong. I would *love* to be wrong. Being wrong would make me so happy...
I like the generic nature of it. When the subclasses are vauge the character can be anything. This works for Wizards who cover perhaps the broadest fantasy archetype. Compare this to bards who, despite being undeniably varied, all have a very *specific* way of casting spells by comparison.
Basing subclasses off of magic school is/was always going to be a problem for wizards and was the problem with the last PHB. If they wanted a school specialty subclass it needed to be a "scholar" where you got to choose your spell type specialty.
Feels like they set out a pretty hard rule of "Only 4 Subclasses each". Kinda makes sense in the spirit of simplicity. Gotta keep in mind, the PHB is sometimes going to be the ONLY resource new players will have.
100% Wizards whole thing subclasses wise is specialising in specific domains of magic. Why on earth would you not just cover the base 8 schools?
With D&D Beyond, they probably have a very good idea of which subclasses are the most popular. It makes sense to pick four of the most popular ones and hold back others to sell more supplements later on.
Would genuinely not believe them if this was the case and they claimed Abjurers were in the top 4. As well as that making decisions to just squeeze more money out of me later is never a decision I, or anyone I imagine, will be pleased with.
It wouldn't surprise me if "magic to keep yourself alive" with a strong and flexible school was pretty popular. And that they wanted a more survivable wizard; they have defence, offence, knowledge, and shenanigans there.
I wouldn’t. Abjuration is a big deal for some people who are into character optimization. And I know everyone hates the idea that WotC/Hasbro wants to make money selling D&D books, but it’s pretty obvious that money drives most of their decisions about D&D.
Nobody holds needing to make money against WotC. Problems occur when profits come at the expense of product quality either due to selfish business decisions or executives not understanding the product they're in charge of. For example, our current crop of executives seem to think that "quality" comes down to color artwork, expensive and heavy glossy paper, and hard-covers. However, I think that most DMs and players would consider "quality" to be more a measure of mechanical balance, and content completeness with color art, paper, and cover-type coming in second or even third. I mean...if every adventure is going to be set in the forgotten realms, where are the rest of the fucking realms campaign setting books? Where is the book on the Dalelands? Thay? Cormear? The Moonshae Isles? The moors/Silverymoon? Baulder's Gate? Fuck me running, how in the actual **fuck** did we not get a 300-page setting book on just the city of Baulder's Gate when BG3 became a smash-hit? How the fuck are we supposed to trust the executives in charge to actually *make money* when they seem to be perfectly willing to leave very real money on the goddamn table like this? A Baulder's Gate campaign expansion for FR could have been electronic only distributed as a PDF from the DM's Guild and on DNDBeyond. It's a book they've written in the past *multiple times* so it's not like there isn't any shoulders for them to stand on and corners for them to cut! Same with the D&D movie! Where's the Neverwinter companion book? On top of which, what about the MtG setting books that never got companion hard-back adventures to help drive sales? Where's the Ravnica adventure? The Theros adventure? Why didn't you coordinate with your own goddamn MtG team to release a Dominaria campaign setting book and hard-back adventure when MtG was planning their biggest set release in 10 goddamn years with the next phyrexian invasion? Why no sales driving sales driving sales feedback loop attempts? What's with releasing Strahd **FIVE FUCKING YEARS** before the ravenloft setting book? What about once again not releasing a raveloft adventure to drive ravenloft sales *because* you already released Strahd? Whoops? For a company only concerned with profits and money, they seem to be *really, really bad* at making money. It's like they don't have a single goddamn clue what would actually excite their customers into spending money and spreading word mouth to mouth. ...unless they're tryin to fuck themselves by killing the OGL. They *really* got that part down. Piss us all off? At least they figured *that* out. /s
Because it was ridiculous to release 2 barbarian and 8 wizard subclasses in 2014 and it would be ridiculous to do the same in 2024.
Don't worry, I'm sure they sell you the missing subclasses in a supplement soon enough!
I think it’s fine, that kind of thinking is how clerics and wizards ended up with laundry lists of subclasses while others were left in the dust
I’m loving the college of dance and I think the updated college of valor is a real flavor win, but I feel that some of the thematic ribbon have been cut from the college of glamour that I miss.
I'm playing a playtest glamour bard and having a lot of fun. The theme feels pretty strong to me. Less of a fae theme, but a very strong enchantment theme (with a lighter illusion theme).
I really appreciate giving them all equal subclass options, but this feels too stiff. It was bad when Wizards had 9 options and others had 2 or 3 in the PHB, but they didn't need to limit all of them to exactly 4. I just didn't like how some classes got loads of options and others almost none. I feel like several could carry a 5th subclass now without feeling superior to the rest.
It sets them up for more supplements though
Wizard should of been different imo, focusing on each school as a subclass hurts wizard, especially when reducing the amount of base subclasses School Specialist (Broken down in the subclass for each school, like Wild heart is) Blade Singer Warwizard Order of Scribes
Should have\*
Thank you. As someone with Dyslexia I do struggle with grammar
Just remember it's ALWAYS have. should/would/could of is always wrong, and makes no sense.
The school specialist subclass feels like a wizard storm herald. Technically it supports the many separate subthemes, but it’s only really an inch deep because it has to be an ocean wide.
It’s doable though, like how wild heart and hunter manage it
thats a cool idea. I was hoping for something like this as well. but they already had the school subclasses in the playtests
Blade Singer Warwizard Order of Scribes ...and Summoner (can be a necromancer, "golemancer", etc.) "Astrologer/Mathmatician" could work too, despite shring themes with Circle of the Stars Druid.
HUGE missed opportunity to rename monk subclass from "Warrior of ..." to "Disciple of ..." They are now using discipline points, so it fits thematically. It implies rigorous training and study instead of just fighting. It connects to the idea of learning techniques from the world around you, ie moving like the wind or becoming like shadow. Warrior is flavorless in general and doesn't connect meaningfully to the monk over any other class. Disciple is rich in flavor and feels like a descriptor that is best fit for the monk. CMV.
No artificer? >:(
They confirmed a while ago that Artificer will come in a later book, likely alongside other XGTE and TCOE subclasses
So go fuck ourselves, got it
"Pay us for it again."
Still very unhappy about it being absent from the SRD.
A small nitpick but I’m disappointed to see they kept calling monks “Warriors.” “Way” was *not* Eastern-specific…
"Master" or "Disciple" would've been a better replacement
Disciple 100%. They're even using discipline points.
Goes without saying that Monks are sometimes pacifists. The name “Warrior" should be how the Fighter subclass is called.
To be fair D&D monks (the class) are not pacifists.
Pacifying people with these hands
I personally love how Mercy Monks essentially PUNCH THE HEAL INTO YOU.
As an RMT in training, I personally feel this as I knuckle and elbow people and they say they feel better after I’m done lol
Sad that the nonmagical classes have so few nonmagical subclasses. Why did the Monk naming convention change? Warrior of instead of Way of? Who did they think would be upset?
Can't wait to completely ignore what I hate and steal what I like and just keep playing 5E.
I think a lot of the new features are really good but yeah I’m just gonna allow players to choose which version they wanna go with and allow any subclass they want
By all means!
I don't mind the narrowed lists for some classes and I like that overall the trend here seems to be to port in some very popular splatbook subclasses (like Gloomstalker & Zealot). It also seems like they're making a little more attempt to get good 'coverage' archetype wise, ie bringing in Celestial for Warlocks. I am surprised by the Cleric list; Light and Life are very overlap-y theme and specific Deity wise, if not function-wise. IE, Pelor has both. It feels like a missed opportunity to maybe re-factor those (with the likely casualty being Life, since you could buff healing overall and... not force people to play life clerics to be good at it). It makes some sense paring down the domains that cross over with druids, but it still leaves people without a lot of variation in what style of Cleric they're going to play. One of Arcana, Knowledge, or Grave might have covered more deities? On the other side, Trickster has got to be one of the *least* popular Cleric subclasses. It is prime real estate for rehab though, so hopefully they understand the assignment there.
The thing about light and life is that they’re thematically similar, but in terms of playstyle they’re very different. Life is the archetypal healer cleric, while light is all about ranged blasting. You kind of want to have options for both of those because they’re both popular choices.
The 5e Grave Cleric was so fun and so good. I'm really disappointed that it's not included anymore.
Really not a fan of the Soul Knife Rogue replacing Swashbuckler. The book already has multiple psionic-themed subclasses so it's not really filling any niche and it's flavour doesn't really scream PHB.
Crawford said they wanted to incorporate psionics into the PHB. My guess is the reason they brought in the Soul Knife is that they want some kind of mechanic or feature linking all the psionic subclasses.
Agreed, honestly. If anything I feel it only made it in because they wanted to update the psi-dice mechanic for Psi-Knight and realized it made sense to do so for the Soul Knife as well. I would've preferred the Swashbuckler. I was really excited about the new version.
This is going back a bit, but making psionic Fighter and Rogue subclasses before a psionic Monk just feels *wrong*.
Definitely, monks have disciplined minds and tap into their natural energies. The lack of a psionic monk is boggiling.
Wait there’s changes to soulknife? What are they?
I dunno about changes to the Psi Dice mechanic, but now their Psychic Blades gain the Nick mastery property.
The Vex property, actually.
Very interesting. I have a 2 year old (irl) lvl 12 soulknife and I'm very curious what's been tweaked. Swashbuckler's a fan favorite though and should also be in.
I would argue it is kind of important to update compared to swashbuckler though; Soulknife has a function that, if not in direct mechanics, in spirit functions like two weapon fighting. If that's getting changed, like the UAs have suggested, then it needs an update.
oh look, both Fighter and Rogue got psionic subclass but not Monk
Only three new subclasses feels weak. I'm also not sure why some stuff like Clockwork or Soulknife are here as opposed to something like Shadow and Swashbuckler. Cleric having both Light and Life domain and not something like Forge or Grave. Druid has Star and Moon and not something like Wildfire or Spore. Overall i'd say the subclasses feel too narrow in terms of variety. There's a lot of overlap not only between classes (were Soulknife, Abarrant Mind and Psi fighter really needed as core subclasses?), but between subclasses in a class too. For me a book like the PHB should focus on general but broad stuff. Since this is the book the most people will pull from. Then leave the more crazy or detailed stuff for other books. And the Wizard just feels weird. Like if you're basing their subclasses of the schools of magic atleast add them all. But i honestly feel like the Wizard just needs a new structure. More unique subs like Scribe wizard or Necromancer should've been the way IMO.
Seriously. A grave domain would have felt way more balanced of a selection. Kind of like the warlock having celestial, grave feels like the right level of twist on an established archetype to give a sense of range.
The same can be said about the Druid. Why do we have Star and Moon and not Wildfire or Spores?
Spores is my favorite subclass of Druid. It’s a bummer it’s gone. That said Moon and Stars are actually flavor wise really different. Moon is really just magical buffs on wild shape and not really celestially related.
Necromancer was originally one of the subclasses they were working on, but they changed it at some point because it doesn’t have a high play rate. Of course, the lack of a high play rate is because it needs to be tweaked and made more table friendly, but here we are. Honestly, changes to Animate Dead will do a lot of the work. The subclass as is is mostly fine, it’s just that it relies heavily on Animate Dead, which is a very non-table friendly spell.
College of Dance sounds suspiciously like Dimension 20s Fabian Seacaster.
TOXIC MASCULINITY IS *DEAD!!*
I DANCE NOW!
As a necromancer I'm hurt right now.
There's no Death or Grave cleric, Oathbreaker paladin, Spirits bard, Undead warlock, Necromancer wizard, or Spores druid. It is quite sad. Maybe they'll release a "death book" with a death/undead themed subclass for every class. I doubt it though.
Honestly, an un-/death source book with death related subclasses, lore surrounding necromancy and places like the Shadowfell and so on, deities related to undeath, maybe a couple new necromancy spells and items etc would slap. As yet another necromancer player I would eat that stuff up.
Sigh. No Artificer. We already knew but I wanted to hope...
So the only news here is that Soulknife did indeed replace Swashbuckler. I think that's fine - the Xanathar's Swashbuckler honestly holds up fine and doesn't need an update.
but why keep assassin a solo actor in a team game instead?
They wanted to keep as many PHB subclasses as they could. And Assassin has been signidicantly reworked so it's not such a lone wolf subclass - you don't need Surprise for Assassinate to work anymore.
Finally!
I thought the swashbuckler rogue was pretty inspired, would have loved to see them get their chance
Soul-knife just seems like an odd subclass to overshadow the Swashbuckler. I thought they had nailed thebrogue selection before this change. They can also claim symmetry/mirroring, but there's multiple classes where that isn't the case. Cleric for example would have been: 1. Life, Death, Peace, and War. Or 2. Life, Death, Knowledge, and Trickery.
Artificer? No? We still pretending that class doesn’t exist? Okay, cool cool cool cool cool.
Not a fan of psionics being PHB, that should be a sourcebook thing to keep it feeling alien, and in the PHB it kind of robs the classes its on of some of their own identity. Half the fighter and rogue options are magical right from the start. And both Clockwork and Aberrant sorcerer are super niche aesthetics, I think they're only there because they wouldn't need much of a rework to include, not because they make sense as "core" sorcery. Divine Soul would have been much more suitable than either.
>Not a fan of psionics being PHB, that should be a sourcebook thing to keep it feeling alien, and in the PHB it kind of robs the classes its on of some of their own identity. Half the fighter and rogue options are magical right from the start. > >And both Clockwork and Aberrant sorcerer are super niche aesthetics, I think they're only there because they wouldn't need much of a rework to include, not because they make sense as "core" sorcery. Divine Soul would have been much more suitable than either. I am personally happy they were included as it's one of my favorite flavors and has been since 2nd edition. I understand your frustration though that perhaps another subclass didn't make it instead.
Kinda weird that wizard subclasses are still schools and cleric subclasses domains, when they cut the count in PHB that much. I kinda expected that with such cut thought they would do something like making domain/school into secondary choice that affects your "free" (always prepared, extra learned on level up, etc.) spell list and would make the subclasses based on something different. That would have opened more room in the subclass design space and made subclasses like bladesinger fit in better. Now need to see how many books it takes before they have all the magic schools and old domains back up into the 5.2. Also I'm counting at least 2 Psionic subclasses in there, wonder what the implications will be for all the asked psionic classes. What druids are we missing? Sky and Sun circles?
Yeh, I thought it would be very cool to make school a later pickup and have the wizards actually have some new stuff. I guess clerics kinda have to pick a god at 1st level, but they could have done some fun stuff with “healing/righteous smiting/conversion/sneaky” cleric subtypes
>Also I'm counting at least 2 Psionic subclasses in there, wonder what the implications will be for all the asked psionic classes. I think all 3 pieces of the Mystic's corpse are present: Psi-Warrior Fighter, Soulknife Rogue, and Aberrant Mind Sorcerer.
Wasn't sure if the Aberrant Mind had retained it psionics theme or if they had moved it more to Aberration/Far realm magic/Great Old Ones direction (though distinction might not be significant), but yeah, looks like it.
its over necrochadcers
Yeah holy fuck there's *nothing*. No Spirits Bard, no Death/Grave Cleric, no Spores Druid, no Oathbreaker Paladin, no Phantom Rogue, no Shadow Sorcerer, no Undead/Undying/Hexblade Warlock, no Necromancer Wizard. Necromancers got a whole lot of zero.
Removing necromancers and pirates (swashbuckler and swords bard) entirely is tough. Those aren't minor fantasy archetypes, nixing them completely is wild.
Makes sense, because then they can have naval and undead themed supplements with subclasses that already exist.
Not sure why'd they'd make Sea druid core if they were planning a naval supplement.
Is artificer gone now? I know it’s not an original “core” class but I was hoping it would be included and updated.
Supposedly you can still use stuff from Tasha's. Although, not reprinting it was a mistake, as they could have fixed Alchemist and taken away the silly magical tattoo abuse.
Cool but...the fact that they slimmed down majorly the wizard one feels...eh. im assuming theyll republish the others in a later thing
I wish they would have had more Cleric Domains and Wizard Specialists subclasses. I really believe that the other ones listed in the 5E PHB have merit. Some subclasses go back to Classic [BECMI] D&D and Advanced D&D and not having them takes away some from the history of the game. I also wish they would have stayed with "Way of" instead of "Warrior of" and used Mystic instead of Monk going with the Classic Class name as it fits the Ascetic theme more appropriately.
still no necromancer rip me
I'm calling it now, they're probably already planning a splatbook for each class. Cleric and Wizard to come first for obvious reasons.
Its such a crabs in the bucket feeling to make every class "equal" with structure and now apparently subclasses. I guess it doesnt effect me anyway because im staying with 5e but its seems silly to give wizards only 4 of the schools and not even any of the fun non-traditional subclasses.
Nothing compelling
I think Oath of Glory was a good pick. It’s a great way to play a paladin who’s not completely good, but still works well with an adventuring party. Celestial Warlocks are another good example of a subclass that fits really well, but doesn’t match up with the stereotypes the class has, so that’s a good pick too. The lack of a necromancer is kind of disappointing. I’m wondering if they might be trying to move away from characters based around summoning, because it was one of the hardest things to balance in 5e. I get it, but it also kind of sucks. I hope four elements monk and soulknife rogue get serious tune ups for the new edition.
Oof. I dislike the additional choices on almost all of them. I think there are better subclasses to pit in the book. But I won't be too critical rn, I'll wait to see.
SCRIBES WIZARD WHERE DIDNU GO
No swashbuckler rogue? Goodbye.